Sloppyjoes7 (talk | contribs) →Community sanction imposed: Reply Tags: Reverted Reply |
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (ap) (TW) Tags: Reverted contentious topics alert |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:I saw your latest edit about Tucker Carlson at the Buffalo Shooting t/p and you are veering very close to an indefinite block. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 20:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
:I saw your latest edit about Tucker Carlson at the Buffalo Shooting t/p and you are veering very close to an indefinite block. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 20:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Maybe you should be focused more on providing useful, accurate, and informative edits, instead of threatening other users. And instead of focusing on censoring edits you disapprove of, you should perhaps use more appropriate forms of response, such as explaining why an edit may be correct, and providing evidence to that effect. [[User:Sloppyjoes7|Sloppyjoes7]] ([[User talk:Sloppyjoes7#top|talk]]) 01:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
::Maybe you should be focused more on providing useful, accurate, and informative edits, instead of threatening other users. And instead of focusing on censoring edits you disapprove of, you should perhaps use more appropriate forms of response, such as explaining why an edit may be correct, and providing evidence to that effect. [[User:Sloppyjoes7|Sloppyjoes7]] ([[User talk:Sloppyjoes7#top|talk]]) 01:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
==Important Notice== |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|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. |
|||
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 04:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:09, 19 May 2022
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Sloppyjoes7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Four Corners
Thanks for your help mopping up the mess that the recent media coverage did to the Four Corners articles. I was cringing seeing the article going down the toilet. I did what I could, but was busy and didn't have the time to research. Thanks again.Dave (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2022
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Julia Collins (Jeopardy! contestant), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. That edit summary of yours was unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
I did not vandalize. My edit was not vandalization. My edit summary is factual, and supported by all citations and all evidence. If you have evidence or a source that my edit was factually incorrect, or misleading, or unsupported, I am open to hearing it. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- To further clarify and explain why this accusation of "vandalism" is false, and the description of the edit as "unacceptable" is entirely unsupported by Wikipedia guidelines, the second sentence of the article Julia Collins (Jeopardy! contestant) stated "She is best known for being a 20-day champion on the quiz show Jeopardy! with the most consecutive wins of a female contestant until Amy Schneider surpassed her December 29, 2021."
- This sentence erroneously states that Julian Collins had the record "until" December 29, 2021. In December 29, 2021, an individual did indeed exceed 20 days as the champion, but that individual (Amy Schneider) is described as a "trans woman" in the Wikipedia article on Amy Schneider. To understand what this means, the article on "trans women" states that "transgender" as "an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth". Furthermore, that article clarifies "Thus trans women fall under the umbrella of being transgender because their gender was assigned male at birth but they identify as a woman."
- Therefore, when my edit clarified that on December 29, 2021, the individual who surpassed 20 days as champion did not change the fact that Julia Collins held the record as the longest record-holding female, this is consistent with both the article on Amy Schneider and the article on Trans woman.
- Furthermore, the edit is consistent with Wikipedia's policies, and is also consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Gender identity.
- So, it is currently unknown why an administrator (Drmies) would not only revert the edit making this correction, but threaten sanctions for doing so. This threat of blocking my account from editing is entirely unsupported by any guidelines, or by any factual analysis of the edit in question.
- ```` Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- To further explain why this threat of being blocked is indefensible, here is one source on the issue:
- According to Yale, [1] "In 2001, a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a nonprofit think tank that took on issues of importance to the national health, addressed the question of whether it mattered to study the biology of women as well as men. [...] The committee advised that scientists use these definitions in the following ways:
- In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
- In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation." [2] Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Harrison, Rick. "What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender?". Yale School of Medicine. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
- ^ Wizemann, TM (2001). "Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Wizemann TM, Pardue ML, editors. Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?". National Academies Press (US). doi:10.17226/10028.
ANI thread involves you
Dronebogus (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I first started editing Wikipedia around 20 years ago, before I created this account. At the time, in general, presenting factual information seemed to be the goal of Wikipedia. And over the years, I was generally thanked for edits, and I would irregularly make minor corrections here and there.
- But things have apparently changed. It is gravely concerning how, multiple times, over a handful of edits in the past week, a few editors (and one admin) are pushing fringe theories that violate WP:FRINGE Wikipedia guidelines. As I am unfamiliar with the seemingly bureaucratic changes that have occured over the past decade or so, I am not quite sure how to address these false accusations that have been made, or the correct procedures I should follow in order to ensure that corrective action is taken. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Community sanction imposed
Per this ANI complaint, you are now subject to a commmunity-imposed indefinite topic ban (WP:TBAN) from the topic area of gender and sexuality (WP:GENSEX), broadly construed (WP:BROADLY). The sanction has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. See WP:UNBAN for your appeal options. El_C 09:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I saw your latest edit about Tucker Carlson at the Buffalo Shooting t/p and you are veering very close to an indefinite block. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you should be focused more on providing useful, accurate, and informative edits, instead of threatening other users. And instead of focusing on censoring edits you disapprove of, you should perhaps use more appropriate forms of response, such as explaining why an edit may be correct, and providing evidence to that effect. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Important 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 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.
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.