Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lot (biblical person). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Actually, you stated on my talkpage that you intend to ignore me and force your preferred wording onto the article. I recommend stating the case for your point of view on the talkpage of the article and seeing what opinions other editors have. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak22:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ignored you on your talk page because you had a WP:NOTHERE attitude. I immediately engaged anyone interested on the talk page, which you have not. There is no source in the article for "seduced" please do not add original research back to the article. Forcing an opinion would be to require the wording of either seduced or raped, with no alternative in between. I have not done so, you have. I don't want to engage in any battles, I want a good article. There is always a compromise and neutral solution as long as people are willing to engage on the talk page. If you don't want to engage, then let someone else pick up the argument. You are free to work, or not work, on any articles you choose. It is not productive to revert and then refuse to engage. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
Really? That is a really minor infraction, if one at all. Using the WP:AVOIDVICTIM argument, is indeed pretty rich. Here is the text "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Victim of another's actions? On this page and at this level of contention you call my post out and under a heading where the OP specifically says to block newbies coming to the article? 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim1138. He is not a living person and even if he was, the trading of one WP:Euphemism for another would probably not be a WP:BLP violation, but again, he died in June. Wikipedia also has a fairly strict and concise view on the use of euphemisms, especially when they are used to complicate comprehension for the average reader, which this does. If you are confused by the use of Enhanced interrogation techniques read some of the history on that article. The first sentence says "is a euphemism .... for torture" and I have never edited that article. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104: I saw, the article is not written from a neutral point of view, however, discussing things on the talk page and changing fluffy language is better than deleting entire sections. Also, I saw your revert description of me as "a vandal warrior trying to game edits". Please WP:AGF. :) Finally, I think with what seems like quite a few edits, and good knowledge of Wikipedia, you should create an account to hide your IP. Just a suggestion! CodingCyclone (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CodingCycloneMay I note you also need to note WP:AGF since you put an unconstructive warning on my page when I obviously had a reason to trim the article and was not even the original editor who trimmed the article. Maybe you should slow down on clicking your reverts and warnings and take the time to read edits and improve WP rather than whatever it is you think you are helping with. Just a suggestion!
Full disclosure, before I abandoned my useless account with thousands of edits, I used to machine gun reverts to get to a respectable number so i get you have to start somewhere. Reverting any deletion of text from anonymous IPs without looking into the reason for the edit is a rookie mistake and will eventually get you on Santa's naughty list. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
