Hello, Thronedrei, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
As it is written now, what you reverted it to, that isn't referenced either. I'm not saying that one wrong makes a right rather, the way it is written incorrectly suggests that the saying is one used to belittle women. As such feminists would/will use that kind of crap to pretend that it is a term created by men. I.E, it needs to made more clear that this term is used by women that feel that sexy boots belittle women, so they in turn belittle these women that wear them.[reply]
Again I provided reliable sources although I admit I did not link to them. The problem here is that Wikiepdia does not accept actual reality as a reliable source. As I mentioned in my post on your site; Wikipedia does not accept a youtube video as evidence. I.E if person makes a statement on a youtube video, this is not considered as a reliable source that person A has actually made the statement even if said video is one that has appeared on television. Only if a "newsmedia" (who by all means is NOT a real reliable source as they are a third party but for some reason is considered by Wikipedia to be reliable) reports on the youtube video, then it is for some reason all of a sudden considered reliable. I.E a video of Person A claiming that the Moon is alive appears on Youtube. Somebody makes an article about this on Wikipedia but the article is thrown out because Youtube videos are not considered reliable. Then a newsoutlet sees that video and writes and article that Person A was saying that the Moon tastes like Cheese (even though Person A never said this in the video.) By Wikipedia standards it would be okay to write an article that Person A claimed that the moon tastes like Cheese even though this clearly is a lie -- but writing an article of what was actually said in the video is not allowed. See the problem here? Wikipedia really needs to fix this approach to things... because as it is now, Wikipedia is NOT an Ecyclopedia or anything of the kind -- it is just a propaganda tool that spews back whatever narrative that controlled media spins.
Now as for reporting redpen for abuse. Sure I could do that; but it would not work as nothing would come from it. I know how modding works. Modding is very much a social club where only mods that doesn't follow the "norm" of what the other active mods do. Only mods that actually try to fix wrongs with sites and the established "norm" are ones that can get punished. Its because anything else would be like throwing bricks in a glasshouse. If they punished Redpen for doing what he did, then they would open up a slushgate for all the mods to be called out on crap they pull. I have no problem with being reviewed as I have nothing to hide -- but as far as I see it would be a waste of energy and time as absolutely nothing would come out from it. So why did I ask about this on Redpens site? I did this top point out what I SHOULD do, because redpen really did abuse his power. Reporting him in reality however would not work though as I explained previously... if anything they would probably try to make a case if me "slandering" a mod when I was just pointing out his abuse.--Thronedrei (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, Thronedrei. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Thronedrei. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Thronedrei. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thronedrei, you obviously have a rather entrenched worldview. But if you want to edit here, you need to do so collaboratively. The things you said on the talk page were factually incorrect. If you want to challenge a long-standing consensus, you need to prevent reliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. I responded to this on Grayfells talkpage and his response was to delete my message to him without addressing it. Id like to contest the conclusion that Grayfells and other people seem to make. They have never provided any proof that what I do is what they claim. I'd argue that what they are doing is abusing the system in order to remove anything they dislike and disagree with. How can a discussion be had, if discussion about a subject is banned? This is why people call wikipedia a cancer, not because of the left leaning views, but how the mods and admins act when dealing with users. As such since discussion can't be had on talk pages... where are discussions about the threads be had?
The person I replied to in the Fascism talkpage made an assertion, to which I replied with another assertion. Can anyone show any proof that what I wrote was just my original thought? Of course not, nor can anyone assert that the person I replied to wasn't guilty of what I was deemed to be. Rather when reverting my comment, the person doing so becomes guilty of the very thing that it was suggested I was. Thing is, when we don't actually provide a source, this argument could always be made.
Thing is, the thing in italics is a question being raised about what happened. Where should such a thing be posted? There is no mail system so you can't send it to mods or admins privately, so how do you argue your point if it can just be deleted?--Thronedrei (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
How was it nonconstructive? Please elaborate. It was mentioned as "baseless" and I pointed out that it was based on witness evidence.So exactly how was this "nonconstructive"? please define exactly what you mean here. Thronedrei (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Marjorie Taylor Greene. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
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.
The edit I made pointed out that there was no source for the claims for the thing I removed. So shouldn't you as per wikipedia rules actually add a reliable source?Thronedrei (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
American politics DS alert
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 post-1992 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 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
