User talk:CZUQZ
CZUQZ, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi CZUQZ! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
BLP
[edit]
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 articles about 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
nableezy - 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
If you restore an edit removed as a BLP violation without consensus again I will be asking for a BLP topic ban. nableezy - 20:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- That would be absurd... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Cool story. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is policy here. nableezy - 20:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- And have you ever seen someone topic banned from BLP for a single revert? "If you restore an edit removed as a BLP violation without consensus again I will be asking for a BLP topic ban" is puffery, its a bluff and while you have good intentions it might mislead CZUQZ about what the proper purpose of a topic ban was and how serious of an issue it is. Mixing it with a formal warning only adds to the issue of conflating your own authority with wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have trouble seeing the word again or something? Either way, Im not entirely sure why it is you think I have interest in anything you have to say about this or really any other subject. I interact with you where I have to, but I dont generally find it to be a good use of my time. So forgive me for the next time I leave your comments directed to me unresponded to. Toodles, nableezy - 21:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- And have you ever seen someone topic banned from BLP for a single revert? "If you restore an edit removed as a BLP violation without consensus again I will be asking for a BLP topic ban" is puffery, its a bluff and while you have good intentions it might mislead CZUQZ about what the proper purpose of a topic ban was and how serious of an issue it is. Mixing it with a formal warning only adds to the issue of conflating your own authority with wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Cool story. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is policy here. nableezy - 20:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)