User talk:Prefix-NA

Welcome!

Hello, Prefix-NA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Woodroar. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Anita Sarkeesian‎, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

revert war on Direct3D

Your recent editing history at Direct3D shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct3D feature levels (asynchronous compute) ...

Just what exactly are you trying to pull ?

WARP12 does not simulate or emulate dedicated compute engines or asynchronous compute engines in AMD terminology and neither do you see CPUs shipping with such a unit ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.55.11 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Discretionary Sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Trevor Noah have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Christopher Cantwell, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christopher Cantwell. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Jim1138. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see how you could be confused, since I suggested retracting your comments, you can strike the part you want to change like this ~~comment being rescinded~~. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

or by replacing the text you want to undo with (Redacted). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the material you deleted has been restored as deleting is not a proper way to retract comments, you can strike or redact comments I said above. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prefix-NA reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ). Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christopher Cantwell. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Scaleshombre (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

We follow what the sources say here. Please don't change text backed by a cited, reliable source, unless you have a different and better cited and reliable source to bring to bear. Neutrality^talk 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These were not any facts backed by any reliable source they were opinion blogs that falsely stated the case. Stop lying and falsifying articles or I will report you to wikipedia mods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefix-NA (talk • contribs) 07:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia mods? 5 years here and you still don't know we have no moderators? But we do have Administrators with the powers to block or topic ban editors, and Neutrality and I are both Admins. Antifa in the US is the name for a movement which consists of unorganised supporters and a few more organised groups. Like the Civil Rights movement had. I have no idea what you mean by chain of command. There is no international organisation and you won't find reliable sources (although I'm not sure you know or agree with what we call reliable sources) that will back you. Yes, there are anti-fascist movements in many countries - is that a bad thing? And Antifa or antifa is the term used as a short-hand reference to those movements, which should come as no surprise. It doesn't mean that they are an international organisation. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Is that a bad thing" Well your now bragging about being an antifa supporter after falsifying the page to remove certain content and mislead people about the group. I guess No point in correcting an article if a literal terrorist supporter is an admin.

Are you on drugs? Doug Weller talk 10:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important standard message regarding to all edits relating to the post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

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.

Neutrality^talk 01:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing this standard notice for awareness. Neutrality^talk 01:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]