User talk:Rìgh

Welcome

Hello, Rìgh, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Album notability

Please see the album Notability guide. The albums you have added are not notable, but you can add reviews and any charting info or they might be deleted. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ernest Gellner into Philosophical Investigations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice, please read

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.

Please do not personalize talk page discussions and remember to assume good faith. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the Stefan Molyneux article

Rìgh—it is not necessary to say that someone is lying, as that is a personal attack. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this needs to be put more bluntly: calling other editors liars and typing in ALL CAPS with an angry tone like that will get you blocked if you keep it up. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch customs and etiquette

An earlier nomination for deletion resulted in keeping the article Dutch customs and etiquette. Obviously deletion isn't uncontroversial, so PROD wasn't the right step to take here, however bad the state of the article might be. – Editør (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the evidence presented at ANI regarding your repeated personal attacks and civility violations at Talk:Stefan Molyneux, I have blocked your account for 24 hours. Please understand that making personal attacks toward other users is not acceptable on Wikipedia. It degrades the discussion and its focus towards resolving the issue-at hand, and it is in direct conflict with the creation of a positive discussion and editing environment for all users. You're expected as an editor of this project to discuss and collaborate positively with others and to refrain from uncivil behavior. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 24 hours didn't get the point across, so I've blocked you for a period of one week. If you wish to appeal, see the guide to appealing blocks. Going forward, please restrict your comments to content, not your belief that other editors have some sort of "agenda". If you cannot come to agreement with other editors, use dispute resolution rather than shouting at them or speculating as to their motives. If you're willing to agree to do that going forward, say so here and I'll be willing to lift the block early, with the full understanding that it will be reinstated for its original period or longer if this should happen again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is read the entire Talk page on that article and you will discover that higher level editors have insinuated things about me. Of course, it seems that insinuation is alright but outright saying something is not okay. I wonder why that is? People in power love to use euphemism in order to survive. I have not filed any block requests yet these individuals have, I wonder why that is. Could it be that I'm attempting to input information that they are worried about and have tried so virulently hard to reject? This is the second time they have attempted to silence me. The first time was entirely justified. The second time is NOT justified. Rìgh (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rìgh. 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)[reply]