User talk:RhinoceraWelcome!
Important NoticeThis 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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 the 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. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Meghan MurphyYour recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hmm, just noticed something ironic. You put this scary warning on my talk page about edit warring and the "3 Revert Rule," but you broke that rule yourself. :-) Oh well, I did too afterwards. Rhino (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nblund talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC) AlertThis 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 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 the 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. Raising in relation to allegations at Talk:Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case and Talk:British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Proposed_merge_with_Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case --Fæ (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Blocked?@Bbb23: Hello Bbb23, if I understand correctly I have been blocked for supposedly being the same person as someone who was blocked in the past. Could you please explain how you reached that conclusion? Thanks. Some additional context: there has been some animosity towards me on part of a few other editors ever since I joined mere days ago to work on some WP:NPOV issues. Please see the talk page of Meghan Murphy in particular, where I have pointed out that this WP:BLP article makes claims which don't appear in any reliable sources. My honest thought is that some editors have a personal vendetta against feminists they see as "TERF" and by proxy anyone who wants to have them represented neutrally on Wikipedia. It's sad to see that administrators aren't noticing what's going on. But we can discuss that separately from my alleged "sockpuppet" status. Rhino (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |