User talk:Sss ra

GamerGate Sanctions Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Cheers.--Jorm (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're spamming me with an informational message, that anyone editing the related pages can see.

I was going to ask what your point is, but now I've come to the realization that when I searched the gamergate article for FBI yesterday I didn't find anything, not because there wasn't.

Basically I think I had the ant page open by mistake, Ctrl+F for FBI=nill, and was wondering why such an important neutral source is completely ignored. (need to wear my glasses or be more careful lol)

IMHO current coverage of the FBI documents is lacking in NPOV, but it's sufficient at least while the lockdown is in effect. So it's not important anymore. Sss ra (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I. . . really don't care, dude. I posted the message because it's required for you to have been formally notified. --Jorm (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, the notification is automatic and I have been formally informed. You're just spamming, don't try to justify it - I doubt anyone "requires" you to do so personally. Sss ra (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't care, don't needlessly send informational spam, hoping that people take it as a threat, because that's how it looks. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained why I posted what I posted and that I've lost interest. At this point you saying that you don't care and you're "required" (by whom or by what?!) just serves to dispel my doubt about your intentions, why do it? Sss ra (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sss ra, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sss ra! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages

Edit warring to restore messages another editor has removed from their talk page is a pretty stupid reason to end up blocked. Stop.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say that said user was not Edit warring himself, in order to remove a message another editor has placed on their talk page which they do not own WP:UP#OWN? I would have gone by the standard policy of assuming the warning was accepted by being deleted, however the user instead decided to place a defamatory comment WP:PA in their edit clearly pointing you he does not agree to the rules of WP:SPAM. I will pursue further action against this if necessary, though possibly it would be administrative. Care to make a suggestion? Sss ra (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am saying the editor was not edit warring when removing messages from their own talk page, completely in compliance with WP:REMOVED. Note specifically the last statement "Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." If you find yourself in a dispute with another editors, follow dispute resolution.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on this fiasco your first comment still makes me chuckle - >You have a nice account. Would be a shame if something were to... happen to it.<. I mean I don't know if you meant anything by it, but perhaps not the best opener when the other guy also opened up with an informational unactionable WARNING spam. From what I recollect he was in fact edit warring as per WP:PA WP:SPAM WP:REMOVED, since he explicitly did not accept the WP:SPAM. And you took it upon yourself to respond to me post-mortem even though we ceased editing before an edit war fully shapes up. So I don't know what that was about but I believe it took the time to properly report this nonsense at the time. I really don't do edits in wikipedia often enough for this type of meandering, but I checked it now and I thought I don't want to leave you hanging forever. Sss ra (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]