User talk:PorziaMedici
Welcome
[edit]
|
Thank you PorziaMedici (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
PorziaMedici, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi PorziaMedici! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Salisbury Group (March 12)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salisbury Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Salisbury Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
George Eaton
[edit]If you want to talk about the text in the George Eaton article, you should do it on the Talk page rather than through tit-for-tat reversion. WP:BRD discusses the process that's best practice: make a bold edit (bold meaning without prior discussion), then when it's reverted, start a conversation on the Talk page (here) and make your case. In particular, articles that are biographies of living people have to follow strict standards and the text in the article should not make any claims which aren't clearly backed by the sources cited. Hope that helps, and I'm happy to discuss the appropriate text for the article on the article's Talk page. Ralbegen (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
[edit]
Hi PorziaMedici! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Identity politics that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Conservatism sidebar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Salisbury Group
[edit] Hello, PorziaMedici. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salisbury Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
[edit] Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Non-binary gender. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Non-binary gender, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
[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.
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.
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that you review the following policies and guidelines before you continue editing on gender-related articles:
EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Graham Linehan 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I note you have previously and recently been warned by two other editors for your editing in gender-related areas. You would do well to read the links they posted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)- I engaged with others in the discussion page, and followed Wikipedia's consensus guidelines. Accusing Graham Linehan of being against trans people is not only highly contentious, but also potentially dangerous.
- As an administrator, you have a responsibility to make sure that Wikipedia articles are written from neutral point of view. You have not lived up to your responsibility in respect to Linehan's article. It is a character assassination, and not a reasoned encyclopaedic article. PorziaMedici (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
PorziaMedici (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As far as I am aware, I followed the consensus guidelines. The gender debate is a highly charged issue at the moment, and I am concerned that Graham Linehan's page has been highjacked by users with ulterior motives. Linehan is a well-known television comedy writer, and only in recent times has been critical of the trans movement. The content on his current Wiki page is clearly influenced far more by recent events concerning his gender critical views, and this has distorted the overview quality of the page. It reads more like a character assassination than a encyclopaedia article. There is no reliable evidence that suggests that Linehan hates or is against trans people. I therefore think it is injudicious and potentially dangerous to label him as 'anti-trans'. The majority viewpoint on the talk page is that we should avoid the 'anti-trans' label for Linehan on account of its contentiousness. And although the Wikipedia guidelines do not necessarily consider consensus to be down entirely to a majority viewpoint, their arguments here are far more charitable and nuanced than the users who appear to have taken over the page.
Furthermore, I have been called up on my recent edits on other gender-related pages. Note that these edits were all in good faith, and have been recognised as such. I want to add some nuance to this conceptually confused debate, and I am relatively qualified to do so. I am concerned that the gender-related pages, although necessarily in need of additional moderation, have been too closely guarded by unqualified users who allow for overly-simplistic and misleading content. For instance, on the non-binary gender page I referenced an article in support of the following statement: 'The categorical distinction between binary and non-binary itself establishes a binary gender system between people who identify as 'binary' and people who identity as 'non-binary'. The referenced article was held to be a subjective opinion piece. This is quite frankly absurd, for it is a matter of deduction; the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion.
Anyway, for the above reasons, I believe that I should not be banned. In the future, I shall make greater use of the talk page. And please be aware that I am still familiarising myself with the Wikipedia guidelines. And I am going to avoid the gender pages for the time being. I do hope that some better moderation can be in place, however.
Decline reason:
You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, when edit warring is not acceptable in most cases. Every edit warrior thinks that they are correct. There does not seem to be agreement that the consensus says what you claim it says, but even if you were correct, there are proper channels to pursue instead of edit warring. Pieces that are a matter of deduction would be original research. Staying away from gender related topics is probably a good idea, but I am not convinced that you will refrain from edit warring elsewhere, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2021 (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.