User talk:Yuotort

Yuotort, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yuotort! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Pluto (Astro Boy) 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Polyamorph (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Yuotort! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Reverse racism, 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. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add any sort of controversial statements in my corrective edit. Yuotort (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reverse racism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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.

See Talk:Reverse racism#Recent edits. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can SEE it's you, dude! Yuotort (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (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:Yuotort reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: ). Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

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-1992 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.

For future reference. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Donda (album), you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pumpkin queen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pumpkin festival. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Also if you continue removing these categories without consensus, you're going to wind up blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Your recent editing history at Category:Alt-right terrorism 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Category:White nationalist terrorism 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:34, 18 August 2022 (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:Yuotort reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By th way if you continue to refer to Praxidicae as male you will be blocked for longer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why take such offense to a simple assumption of another user's sex on my part? Yuotort (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once is a mistake, no problem. Continuing to do it after being corrected is deliberate. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia works on showing respect for others. And when you have been asked nor than once not to call Praxidicae a male it indicates that you may not be interested in Wikipedia:Civility and more interested in Wikipedia:Harassment. The first time may have been a mistake but after being told you should not repeat it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message on my talk page was literally the first indication I saw of Praxidicae being female. Also, the way you keep referring to the matter makes it sound like a transgender thing. Yuotort (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? Yuotort (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your transgender comment is pretty odd. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hello. Redirect pages function as possible search terms, and should lead people who search them to an article that's rarely outside the mainspace. Please see the Wikipedia:Redirects guideline for more info. Thank you. ~~ lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuotort, when people search "Racism against white people", they expect an article about such topic. Reverse racism, though biased/loaded term, does mentions cases of anti-white racism. ~~ lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-white racism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-white racism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Anti-white racism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding non-notable trivia

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Steeve Ho You Fat. 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 noticeboards.
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. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sources and writing on The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder

While I appreciate that you expanded the description for the "Juneteenth" episode, and the description of Emily, the sources you used for the season 2 reviews and controversy, are not good ones. A good guide to which are reliable sources is listed at WP:RSPSS, which states "there is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science...For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas" (in this case, using Fox News would fall under "politics" topic), and says for New York Post, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics" (again, this article undoubtedly falls under reporting "with regard to politics"). Not sure about Giant Freaking Robot but the Bounding Into Comics article has the same views as the NY Post and Fox News pieces, and seems to have the same slant. In sum, much better sources could have been used, in order to ensure the article maintains WP:NPOV, ones which I found pretty easily in just searching on Google News for "The Proud Family". I hope this helps in your future editing endeavors. Historyday01 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek characters

Calling this well-reasoned edit of mine "vandalism" is frankly offensive. You are free to add sourced information; you are not free to restore original research. Based on past blocks and warning messages you've received, I see you have a propensity toward edit warring. I strongly discourage you from restoring that edit unaltered. If you don't intend on adding sourced information to that article, leave it be. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]