User talk:ChrisRehm8814
ChrisRehm8814, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi ChrisRehm8814! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
ChrisRehm8814, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]|
|
Hi ChrisRehm8814! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
Editing Marvin Minsky
[edit]I see that you are a new editor, who has only ever edited the Marvin Minsky article, so you may be unfamiliar with some of our policies on Wikipedia, which are very different from most forums on the web. I invite you to review:
You have concluded from the Giuffre's testimony that Minsky is a pedophile. Yet her testimony only says that Ghislaine Maxwell had directed her to have sex with Minsky. She didn't claim that she had actually approached Minsky (though according to a blog, she did approach him, and he turned her down [1]), or that she did have sex with him. Concluding from this that Minsky was a pedophile goes well beyond Wikipedia's definition of original research.
You have not been editing cooperatively, but rather engaged in edit warring against multiple other editors who have modified your edits. You have not engaged in discussion on Talk:Marvin Minsky.
You have called me a "vandal" in one edit summary, and said "sorry your hero is a pedophile" in another. These are considered Personal Attacks, and aren't allowed.
Your claims about Minsky are libellous, though of course not litigable since he is dead. Libel is against Wikipedia policies.
If you continue to edit this way, there's a good chance that you will be sanctioned. May I suggest that before continuing to edit, you review Wikipedia policies? --Macrakis (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- May I suggest you stop being a disgusting and degenerate pedophile apologist, ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- May I suggest that the conversation remains civil rather than turning into personal attacks? Calling anyone "degenerate" is insulting. SimetraartemiS (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing
[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Marvin Minsky, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Name calling is not evidence, and editing against consensus is disruptive. Samboy (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisRehm8814 Your most recent edit wasn't helpful to constructively resolving the issue. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you can also feel free to ask questions about Wikipedia on my talk page as well; the guidelines can be a bit intimidating at first but usually resolve to common sense. (of course, if you're not new, and are using a throwaway account or astroturfing, please cease doing so.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
April 2020
[edit] Hello, I'm S0091. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Diamond and Silk that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The term vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. It may not have been your intent, but calling someone a vandal is considered a personal attack when it is not substantiated. Please also note the WP:ONUS is on you to for any content you add. If someone reverts you, the appropriate action to take is to start a discussion on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Wish you the best of health. S0091 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
-- Can you point out what is not civil. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisRehm8814, thanks for the note. Reverting someone and stating in the edit summary that you are reverting vandalism, when that is not the case, can be considered a personal attack. The editor clearly does not agree with your addition to the article so at this point please start a discussion on the article's talk page so you can gain WP:consensus for the change. Also, focus your comments on the content, rather than the editor. I hope this provides clarity and again, wish you the best of health. (Note: your warning on my talk page will not go far). S0091 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. You're trying to manufacture consent here, and I'm not buying it! ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Diamond and Silk 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. -- Valjean (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm right. Please stop reverting. Thank you for your compliance. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- That makes no difference. You are edit warring, and that is not allowed, EVER. You can be blocked. -- Valjean (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I AM FUCKING IN THE RIGHT YOU AUTSTIC. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm right. Please stop reverting. Thank you for your compliance. ChrisRehm8814 (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Chris, you also need to realize that your edits were violations of our WP:BLP policy (unsourced negative content), so the WP:3RR rule does not apply to reverts of your edits. We take BLP matters seriously here. All content must be based on reliable sources, especially negative content. -- Valjean (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)