User talk:Void if removed: Difference between revisions

Hello, Void if removed! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 11:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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.

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.

Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.

Please note that 3RR is a bright-line rule, which applies even if all of your edits would be actual improvements to the article in question. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Initially wanted to change this account name, but guidelines just said create a new account since this account was fairly new and unused. Experimented with the other account while I got up to speed, but ultimately found that confusing and had already abandoned the alt account in favour of this one. Void if removed (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per below. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right. If I unblock you, will you stick to this one account? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Void if removed (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Void if removed. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you have broken WP:3RR at two separate articles, you have been reported here. Cheers, Number 57 21:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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 ~~~~}}.   Salvio 21:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are heading towards a topic ban. You know the saying "pick your battles". You are battling over trivia about LGB Alliance to a disruptive level, whether it is their location or exactly how many founders. These are not aspects that are important and yet persist and edit war far beyond getting the message. You can't just remove or delete streets because it embarasses you. -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tufton Street" category is either a neutral location, or it is a shorthand for right-wing/libertarian thinktanks with undeclared funders, such as GWPF. The former is pointlessly fine-grained and the latter needs to be substantiated (if it is to apply to LGBA) and ideally given a better category name. You are trying to have it both ways here, pretending that it is "just a street" while implying there is something embarrassing about it.

The founders are either Kate Harris and Bev Jackson (as they have said, consistently, in multiple sources, since day one, and as recently as last month) or they are the 5 who have been cobbled together from multiple out of date (and some corrected) sources over time by the editors on that page, to the point of circularity. Much as you protest otherwise, there is no prior source for those five in that order than that article. I think that ought to be a cause for concern.

And I started with the "trivia" on this page because I erroneously though that would be the simplest to change. It is interesting that changing such trivial things meets with such resistance. Almost as if they aren't actually trivial. Void if removed (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to have it both ways or pretend it is just a street. A doctor's practice on Harley Street (Category:Harley Street) is exactly the same. They gain from the reputation of their location. Same for Wall Street in the US. That LGB Alliance lose from the reputation of their location (at least in the mind of liberal leftys) is their problem. -- Colin°^Talk 16:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tufton Street itself is full of reputable organisations who suffer nothing reputationally from that location. I think it's a waste of time and effort collating them, but if it is "just a street" then everything on that street that has a Wiki article should go in it. I personally think a category to collect the "Nine Entities" is far more useful, because that's what's actually interesting about the location, and all this just dilutes what was obviously the intended purpose of this category. Void if removed (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]