User talk:IronAngelAlice
 | This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any threads with no replies in 7 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here. |
i suggest
[edit]you go away and attempt to make an in depth study of logic and falalcies before trying to play with the big boyz on the H-H Hoppe article again. the ability to study the nuances of logic is not something which can be taught and is dependent on your Iq so i'm not sure how successful you'll be.
thaaaaaanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.116.110 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been sort of
[edit]following your travails on the feminazi article and have been debating, as you seem to be doing now, whether or not it is worth my time to get involved. My compromise was to let you know that there are folks out here glad to see you fighting the good fight for us. I have on several occasions discovered what you are now learning (or likely already knew) that the True Believer (see Eric Hoffer ) will never back off because to do so is to let the side down, and those “sides” are often very unforgiving since they are driven by pre-ordained dogma rather than . . . … something else. Often (opinion) backing off for a breather is a good thing to do because the fight will still be there when you get back. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alice
[edit]this is a really funky message, but I am being interviewed by the BBC and they want me typing something on wikipedia so I decided to write to you. they will let me know when to stop doing this. Until then, I'm typing onward. i will take some time later and explain exactly what it afoot. Thanks for being a good sport. The are now dealing with "reflections" - I can only imagine what that might be. So I have a daughter who is getting a PhD in History and Women's Studies and I am thinking of asking her to take a look at the feminazi thing. She is not above saying, "Dad, I'm trying to write my theses, (Gender and Punk Rock - I'm so proud of her) I don't have time for assholes like this" but who knows. I think that they are figuring out what to do about the "reflection" They are deciding, I think, that the reflection is sort artsy, so is okay. Have you ever had a camera rolling at you, with a boom mike hanging overhead/ It is a bit discomforting and not really conducive to goo thought, writing and certainly not spelling. Now everything is going nuts, Sorry about this, but I had to do something and you wee the last person to post at my user page. Now they want me to look bust again and then I promise to go away. ow they want a close up on m fingers, typing away. I am a sight typist, so can't do anything fast, Perhaps slow ois okay?? Who knows, Perhaps I won't actually sent this, but It is real, Well sort of. We can discuss the exact meaning of "reality" some other time. Is this enough? I am not allowed to talk to them or even look at them, 'cause,, that's not cool, so I just keep in doing this sort of James Joyce stream of consciousness, or is it unconsciousness? Who knows. More?? !! Meanwhile I feel sorry for the guy holding the mike because he's working but the only sound is my keyboard clicking away. Might be music to some ears, but . . . ..... not mine. How long can this go on for, I can't believe that I am that fascinating. But I can't look up because then we'd have to do the whole thing again. I have a project that I am working on. Sort of a half wikipedia and half not. It involves. a sculpture exhibit that took place Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Too funny. I feel like I'm seeing Wikipedia through Babel Fish.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- If Babel Fish translated cultures then that might have been exactly what was going on. I am a bit sorry (and a bit not) for writing the above to you, but it just happened. Living Life live, with no "Take Two" or instant replays to fall back on. So it just happened. The BBC are doing a series on the WWW and somehow I was picked as being a sort of Everyday Manin the world. So there they were. I did discuss feminazis with my daughter earlier today and she was mildly interested. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit anyway that you want. But I wonder how these folks [1] editing will turn out? Carptrash (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Pro-life movement. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. mjwilson (Talk/Contrib) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
undiscussed page move on Evangelicalism
[edit]Please use the talk page before making such drastic changes. HokieRNB 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Multiple edits
[edit]Your editing habits strike me as rather odd. While I recognize that you might want to organize your edits into separate edits, dozens and dozens of consecutive edits strikes me as excessive. I wonder if you are operating under the belief that each edit can only change one thing in an article.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Just cleaning up lots of mess.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michael Flood. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 121.222.114.232 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Conservative protestant evangelicalism and fundamentalism
[edit]
The article Conservative protestant evangelicalism and fundamentalism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Content fork of Evangelicalism, and implausible misnomer
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HokieRNB 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Luv-it, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
[edit]Your repeated edits to Christianity
[edit]Please let's stop before we get into an edit war. What you are calling POV is an actual survey conducted by professional researchers for Christianity Today magazine. Perhaps you missed reading the citation that explains how far it is from POV. You can't get any more "well sourced" and NPOV than that study. As far a global goes, we can only report what we can find. We can't make it up. You are welcome to search for global data on this point, but very likely it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean we should omit what's been in the article for over two years without complain. PLEASE! Stop being disruptive. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Talk page does not adequately explain what are your real objections to this survey. From looking at your Wiki Contribution list, I sense we are close to being "on the same page." (1) The survey article is from a credible source. (2) It helps explain that "Christian" means different things to different people, and that different people act out their faith quite differently. That doesn't mean everyone is correct in the way they live out or don't live out their faith in Christ. It just shows that one size doesn't fit all. (3) There is no slam of any denomination or quasi-denomination. None is even mentioned by name. But "if the shoe fits...," it's up to the reader to determine where they may fit. (4) I feel very strongly about leaving the survey, unless you can find something to replace it that we can agree is even better. I'm personally invested in it because (a) of the above reasons, and (b) I spent literally hours searching, studying, comparing, and cutting down the article into bite-sized pieces. To have you appear on the scene and rip it out for no reason considered valid by Wiki is offensive. If I'm missing something important, please correct me, but please stop erasing it! Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christian. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Thank you. HokieRNB 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to History of Christianity and homosexuality, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. HokieRNB 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please engage the talk page before leaving a message here. I did give specific reasons for the removal in the talk pages and the edit summaries. Please do not spam my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Christian, you will be blocked from editing. HokieRNB 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop spamming my talk page and threatening me. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Protestant views on abortion
[edit]It might be a good idea to create an article entitled Protestant views on abortion, because most of the material on the entry Christianity and abortion currently focuses on Protestant views. There is nothing wrong with getting into specifics when there is already a sufficient amount of sources available. ADM (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sidebars
[edit]Hi. I noticed that you added the abortion sidebar to the top of a number of articles. While I have no position on whether or not the sidebar belongs in the article, I'm pretty sure that our MOS would suggest that it shouldn't be at the top of the page. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Your disruption at Template:Abortion
[edit]Please engage in discussion at the template's talk page, instead of a pattern of disruption. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I did, you did not when you made massive changes. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are doing this, again, at Abortion and mental health. You keep reverting with no explanation whatsoever. Please engage in a discussion at the template's talk page. Please take a break from your reverting spree, until we have had a chance to discuss this. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Religion and abortion, etc.
[edit]Can you explain on the talk page of one or more of these articles what POV problems you perceive in the recent version that you're reverting away from? I'm sympathetic to your statement that this version is biased, but it is impossible for us to work together to correct the bias unless specific problems are identified. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware of the 1RR/day restriction on all abortion-related articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello IronAngelAlice. Your recent edit removed sourced content from Feminazi. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits on the article's talk page, especially when the content is sourced and the removal is controversial. Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Pet tattoo for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pet tattoo 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/Pet tattoo until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring notice
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feminazi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Your reversion removed sourced information while introducing unsupported generalizations and unduly weighted opinions. All material on Wikipedia must be directly supported by published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, IronAngelAlice. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
August 2019
[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 Feminazi, 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. Please do not remove valid references without an explanation on the talk page or in an edit summary. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice: gender-related controversies & post-1932 American politics
[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 (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.
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-1932 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.
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is IronAngelAlice. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice: abortion
[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 abortion. 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.
Your addition of quotes about abortion to the Feminazi article falls under these sanctions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
IronAngelAlice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not going to Sealion with a Mens Rights Activist. The term "Feminazi" as used is a pejorative term to refer to *all* feminists as a way to silence discussion. This has been documented again and again. I don't see where the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "feminazi" because you didn't link to that. I do see where dictionary.com defines it as it is being used. (Read the articles written by women who've been called 'feminazi's and silenced because of if.') If Wikipedia wants to prevent me from editing, this is consistent with their hostility toward women editors.
Decline reason:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I'm not going to Sealion with a Mens Rights Activist" (emphasis mine) I speculate this is an autocorrect problem. Note that multiple editors reverted your change. You are therefore obligated to refrain from reintroducing the change until you obtain consensus on the article's talk page. This is covered in WP:EW. Note that it is not relevant whether or not your edit is correct. Note also that I am not part of this dispute and am not a Mens Rights Activist, I'm simply informing you of how Wikipedia resolves WP:DISPUTEs. Yamla (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please do not modify (or remove) declined unblock requests for active blocks. You are welcome to make a new unblock request, though! --Yamla (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
IronAngelAlice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is Sealioning. Please read it and make yourself familiar with it. It's something women encounter on Wikipedia constantly.
Please also read the following links regarding the usage of the pejorative term "feminazi." I am an academic who studies this use of language and I don't have a lot of time to argue back and forth with people who don't have subject matter knowledge. Further, as a Jew I find this term incredibly insulting.
https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/feminazi-history-limbaughs-trademark-slur-against-women
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11963868/Feminazi-Its-never-OK-to-call-anyone-a-Nazi-even-us-feminists.html
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-03/check-out-cumbia-response-word-feminazi
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/16/feminism-glossary-lexicon-language/99120600/
https://womenintheworld.com/2015/10/24/gloria-steinem-explains-who-turned-the-word-feminism-into-a-bad-word/
https://time.com/4085396/gloria-steinem-amy-schumer-playboy-book/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8yoygU56lg
Decline reason:
Asking you to explain large-scale changes to an article isn't sealioning. This goes doubly for the removal of well-sourced content. For example, you said above, "I don't see where the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "feminazi" because you didn't link to that" - the article had a link (footnote 1), until you removed it. See this diff for an edit that reverts your changes and thereby restores the link. Your version of the article, on the other hand, was largely unreferenced, which is a problem. Engaging in an edit war to push your version of the article is disruptive, and it is disruptive even if you are right regarding the content. Since you do not indicate any understanding of why your conduct was problematic or how you'd pursue dispute resolution in the future if unblocked, I cannot accept this request to be unblocked. Personal attacks also don't help. Huon (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Note from the blocking admin: IronAngelAlice and any reviewing admin, please compare also the discussion at the arbitration enforcement board Bishonen | talk 22:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC).
IronAngelAlice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reasons for the changes are self-evident if the other user who requested that I would be blocked read the articles I cited. He didn't even allow me to complete my changes before he started to revert everything. The other user's sources didn't say what he said that they claimed. And, clearly, the definition cited by the other user is not the only definition. If Wikipedia wants women editors and subject matter experts, then perhaps you should stop blocking us when we bring problematic definitions and articles to your attention.
Decline reason:
The correctness or otherwise of your changes is neither here nor there. The issue is with your approach to these changes, not necessarily the changes themselves. Yunshui 雲水 06:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
IronAngelAlice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If it's the case that the reason for blocking me is my "approach to the changes," then this is simply a case of a more knowledgable outsider to Wikipedia being blocked by someone (Sangdeboeuf) who feels he owns a particular article. I don't know the rules and procedures of Wikipedia, while Sangdeboeuf uses his knowledge of rules (and how to petition to block someone) to his advantage in order to advance his particular point of view on feminist topics. This time-consuming BS is why you don't have accurate articles and why women don't feel welcome here.
Decline reason:
When someone disagrees with your edits, you need to discuss them on the talk page (or pursue some other kind of dispute resolution), not simply ram them through anyway. Especially when you gave no reason for these rather large changes and there is no obvious reason for doing them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
IronAngelAlice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't "ram my way through." I was in the middle of making the edits, when Sangdeboeuf reversed them. On all of the other pages I've edited, the edits were self-evident and no one "required" a discussion. Should I now go around requiring Sangdeboeuf to explain all of his edits on every single page ad nauseum? It's abusive and exhausting, of course, and this kind of behavior chases away editors who don't have time for the BS.
Decline reason:
Contributing to Wikipedia entails having to work with others, including people who may have different political views. If you signal a desire to work in that spirit then you may find an admin who will unblock you. Haukur (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You've had five unblock requests. Enough. You are hardly an outsider to Wikipedia, you've been here more than twelve years and are outright ignoring what everyone is telling you. Talk page access revoked for the duration of your block. If you continue like this once your block expires, please expect your next block to be indefinite. On the other hand, if you properly follow WP:DISPUTE and Wikipedia's other policies, you are welcome to continue editing once your block expires. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Your addition to Gregory S. Brown has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Gregory S. Brown
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Gregory S. Brown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. creffett (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, IronAngelAlice
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Gregory S. Brown, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to prevent the deletion:
- Edit the page
- Remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - Click the button.
But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Onel5969 TT me 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Important notice: gender-related controversies and post-1992 American politics
[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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
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.
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.
Yearly reminder. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)