User talk:50.221.225.231

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 20:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

— Newslinger talk 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

@Acroterion: What "disruptive editing" are you accusing me of? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Per WP:ADMINACCT, you're required to explain and justify your action. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the block summary. Acroterion (talk)

@Acroterion: Quote this alleged "explanation". 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your familiarity with a variety of bluelinked policies and guidelines, this appears to be yet more tendentious behavior, and I'm confident that you don't need my help to find the block summary, to understand expectations for editor conduct in contentious topics, or to understand that your conduct at Talk:Anti-gender movement is disruptive, and that your attitude toward other editors is hostile and sanctionable. It is very clear that this isn't your first time in this situation. Disruptive editors are not arbiters of whether they're satisfied with explanations, the community is. If you think you should be unblocked and can address your conduct toward other editors, ask for an unblock. Your behavior will probably receive greater scrutiny if you do. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: this appears to be yet more tendentious behavior Requesting an explanation for your block is NOT in any way "tendentious behavior". It is explicitly authorized by WP:ADMINACCT:

editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions... Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

It is deeply disturbing that you want to label my request for an explanation "tendentious behavior". It's downright Kafkaesque. Frankly, it reflects terribly on your suitability for adminship.

your conduct at Talk:Anti-gender movement is disruptive How so? You continue to evade the central question. It's very telling that you repeatedly refuse to explain what this alleged "disruptive behavior" is. Perhaps you'd like to review WP:ADMINABUSE, since you appear to be engaging in it right now.

50.221.225.231 (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not doing much to make me think I was mistaken in my assessment of your conduct, your level of proficiency with Wikipedia and probable past and present sanctions, and your treatment of other editors. If you think you're being treated badly, then make an unblock request. Otherwise, this just looks like filibustering. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Yet again, you refuse to even state what these alleged "disruptive edits" are. Very telling. Your WP:ADMINABUSE and misconduct is blatant at this point.

Any "unblock request" should come after you explain what your block was even for. Which you've repeatedly refused to do. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just make an unblock request. That will tap into a formalized process you can use. Your refusal to do so is itself problematic. Follow procedure. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: There is nothing "problematic" about this. You need to review procedure. Read WP:BLOCKFAQ:

If you don't understand any detail of the policy, or still don't understand the action or reason that caused you to receive a block, you can ask the administrator that blocked you for help, or for any clarification on details that may be unclear to you. Administrators are expected to answer your questions and reasonably explain their actions. Don't ask for help or respond with questions within the actual unblock request, though, as it should be only used after you understand the reasons for the block,

50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: [your] probable past and present sanctions What is that supposed to mean? Please be specific. You might want to keep WP:ASPERSIONS in mind, since this remark of yours might be included as evidence in a possible WP:ADMINABUSE case. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. Before you do that, please read WP:SATISFY, especially the last line. It's a lot more relevant that the links you keep posting. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: You've still refused to state which specific edits you deem "disruptive", let alone why. Very telling. Rest assured the record will show that. Please read WP:ADMINACCT:

editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions... Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

and WP:BLOCKFAQ:

Administrators are expected to answer your questions and reasonably explain their actions.

50.221.225.231 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.