User talk:Rfrf101

Welcome!

Hello, Rfrf101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
Free subscription to our informative newsletter
Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

Join today!

– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Anjelica Huston page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions

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.

In particular, your recent edits at Beating of DeAndre Harris violate Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Volunteer Marek 09:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate anything. My information is properly sourced and verifiable!

3RR

Your recent editing history at Beating of DeAndre Harris 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 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can 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.

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Gateway Pundit; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know how Wikipedia works. The idea that the subject of an article should control the article is completely against the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is complete and utter nonsense. It is because I'm trying to accurately building encyclopedia is a reason why I am editing. The authors of this article continually goes around to other sources to support their suggestion that Gateway pundit is conspiracy theorist and is far right. I properly sourced it corrected this page because a company has the right to define and describe what their company is. I went directly to that companies page and post it how they describe their self and properly Source the material. I'm going to tell you like I told those little petty kids, if you're going build a encyclopedia, your encyclopedia should not look like Reddit or gossip blog. This looks like a lefty gossip blog and an opinion piece.

Oh yeah, I most definitely would be appealing this BS you put on my account after being member 4/11 years. In addition I contacted the owner of Gateway pundit to let them know that Wikipedia is allowing defamation on this page and it's blocking anyone that corrects it if it doesn't fit the main opinion are these little children just that is writing it. Rfrf101 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Me Now

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rfrf101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(Redacted) Rfrf101 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This entire appeal is an extended personal attack. Talk page access revoked. Appeals can be made via WP:UTRS. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.