User talk:Rockpapersilver
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
{{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bobby Sheng.
- To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chzz ► 23:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bobby Sheng, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Bobby Sheng
[edit]
Hello Rockpapersilver. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Bobby Sheng.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bobby Sheng}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
February 2019
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jared Taylor, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - TNT 💖 20:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jared Taylor 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
June 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 Shaft (2019 film), 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. Particularly, user generated content is not considered notable or reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shaft (2019 film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. From WP:USERG: Although review aggregators — for example, review aggregation sites — such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not. DonQuixote (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:USERG specifically states Although review aggregators — for example, review aggregation sites — such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not.
It's literally telling you that you shouldn't do what you're doing. You can't get more explicit than that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy notice - discretionary sanctions
[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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
Jared Taylor
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jared Taylor ; 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. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite block and explanation
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Neutralitytalk 03:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked you from editing Wikipedia due to your repeated use of Wikipedia to promote fringe-views over a series of months. Your edits to (and reversions) on the Jared Taylor biography in both February 2019 and July 2019 show that you lack an understanding of core policies like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and more. Your editing on other articles in other topic areas suffers from similar problems. If you demonstrate in the future that you have read and understand these policies, it is possible that you could persuade someone to lift the block, but as of now your disruption is harming the encyclopedia, so I am showing you the door. Neutralitytalk 03:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Rockpapersilver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the "admin" who blocked me was actually doing that of which he accuses me, ironically hus name is neutrality, and that is what i was striving for. please review the talk section of the taylor entry. imthe entire article characterizes him in a manner the subject does not characterize himself and cites clearly biased sources many of which have run into their own credebility issues of late, cnn and the splc for example. this guy neutrality is abusing his position. he or she clearly has an agenda. and is not driven by good faith. it is contributors like this individual that give wikipedia a bad name and tarnish its credibility. look at my history 8 years and no issues. i noticed an article about someone i do not have sny association with or love for, that was so glaringly biased and borderline libelous that i simply removed text that called into question the veracity of the entry itself. and this person neutrality comes out swinging. it is he who should be banned indefinitely. he is a coward, with an ax to grind and a stark reminder of small men with small amounts of power. liftt this ban now. Rockpapersilver (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests that only attack others are not considered. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 16 September 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.
only attack
[edit]Rockpapersilver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
did this guy even read what i wrote? only attack? with admins like this wikipedia's days are numbered. only attack? what bizaro world are you people living in?
Decline reason:
Read it. Not impressed. Talk page access removed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:48, 16 September 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.