User talk:LibertarianLibrarian85

Orphaned non-free image File:Cuban Missile Crisis Aftermath.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cuban Missile Crisis Aftermath.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Syria, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Notice: Syrian Civil War

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please be aware that there is a topic-wide one revert rule for all pages related to the Syrian Civil War. You have made two reverts to Syria within the past 24 hours, including this one and this one. Please self-revert your most recent edit. Also, please note that any other reverts that you make to content that others have inserted within the next 24 hours may result in a block or sanction, unless an obvious exception applies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Fall of the Assad regime, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added clarification for the reasoning behind my edit, it's in the comment of my revert in the article edit history LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek consensus from that edit. It's becoming clear that the community opposes your edit. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bowing to cliquism is not the same as consensus LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks from LibertarianLibrarian85. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LibertarianLibrarian85, I came extremely close to blocking you for violating the contentious topic restrictions on Fall of the Assad regime, which you were warned about above. Further, you are once again engaging in personal attacks as demonstrated here, discussing the person's personal motivations. You were warned about that behavior in a WP:AN/I discussion here, and given a final warning about this behavior above. Some administrators would have immediately blocked you for these violations. The only reason I didn't is because you are now engaging in discussion at Talk:Fall of the Assad regime rather than continuing to violate the contentious topics restrictions on that article. In the hopes of being absolutely clear and frankly the apparent necessity to be blunt; violate contentious topics restrictions again or engage in any sort of personal attack against another editor here and I will block you for an extended period of time. Are we clear? If I haven't been clear, then by all means ask. Continuing as you have been is completely unacceptable and will result in a block. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to block me, then do so, as I firmly believe I've done nothing wrong in both the first and second warnings that have been issued to me

While i do admit my tone could've been less harsh around the time of the first warning. I firmly believe I'm safeguarding syria pages from revisionist narratives and will not hesitate to set the record straight

If this is still unacceptable, then i urge not only calling for administrative intervention to block my account, but its deletion as well, as i will continue to revise any questionable material and advocate for changes where needed LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, accounts cant be deleted on wikipedia 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LibertarianLibrarian85; if your intention is to engage in battleground behavior on articles, then really you have no place here. If you believe you have not been engaging in personal attacks, despite this discussion, then you likely do not have a place here either. We take civility seriously here. Casting aspersions about someone rather than rationally discussing issues that affect an article is not a pathway forward, no matter how motivated you feel to do so. If you do not believe that the contentious topics restriction applies to you, despite the warning above, despite you violating it before, then again you do not have a place here. The reason the contentious topics restrictions exist it to manage highly contentious articles on Wikipedia where there have been innumerable disputes where people believe they are right and the opposite parties believe they are right, and there's no middle ground. You are in such a situation now with Fall of the Assad regime. All of these things I am noting are issues having to do with working cordially within a collective community.

So, how do you want to proceed? I could block this account indefinitely if you like. You could create another account and attempt the same sort of editing, but you'll run afoul of the same issues. What do you want to do? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your call not mine LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it isn't. It's pretty simple; how you behave dictates what happens here. Insult people again, you'll get blocked. Violate WP:CTOP again, you'll get blocked. Edit war here like you did on Commons and you'll get blocked. It's your decision. I hope you choose well. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

get naynayed LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Another insult here. At this point, he believes that he's right and thinks he reserves the right to edit war. Now, they're advocating for you to become "embarassed". Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't get offended by random people on the net trying to insult me. Zero effect on me, and far more reflection on the person attempting the insult. Plus, I'm not going to block someone because they insulted me. I'd consider that a violation of WP:INVOLVED, kinda like "<whaaaaa> he said something mean about me! <whaaa> <BLOCK>". So, no, not going to block for this but certainly another administrator might. Personally, per WP:ROPE, I'd want something against another editor before doing that. And no LibertarianLibrarian85, that's not an attempt to encourage you to violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:EW or any other policy/guideline on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]