Welcome!
Hi ShirtNShoesPls! I would like 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Brothers of Italy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish well said,,say I Armystrong1975 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Race and intelligence. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- The information was being removed from the article. Not deleted. There was a Quillette article a week ago that has led to negative information about "racialist" editors surrounding race/intelligence to be removed from their leads. It was restoring the status quo. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- That template didn't really work well so I'll explain. This is clear canvassing. Any notifications about discussions must be neutral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- That wasn't my intention. I was attempting to have the consensus description restored. My apologies if there was any misinterpretation. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- You also must stop making allegations of whitewashing and vandalism against other editors and edit warring. You're currently involved in edit wars on multiple articles and you respond to other editors with aspersions and hostility. You're also editing in CTOPs, which require your behavior to be excellent. Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- That wasn't my intention. I was attempting to have the consensus description restored. My apologies if there was any misinterpretation. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- That template didn't really work well so I'll explain. This is clear canvassing. Any notifications about discussions must be neutral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Fiducia supplicans, you may be blocked from editing. –DMartin 03:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- It wa just a question. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- You said, quote,
John Boswell states that the Catholic Church accepted homosexuality during the middle ages. It was only when homophobic priests misinterpreted parts of Sodom and Gomorrah that it actually became a so-called problem.
There is no question in there. That is definitionally off-topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)- Because the article says longstanding. As someone who went to Catholic high school, we were taught that the opposition is relatively recent. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say
longstanding
, nor did your comment. Please consider avoiding contentious topics that you feel uncertain about the details of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say
- Because the article says longstanding. As someone who went to Catholic high school, we were taught that the opposition is relatively recent. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- You said, quote,
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Notice about our policy on edit warring
Hi ShirtNShoesPls! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Charles Murray (political scientist) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring warning - 2024 United States presidential election
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; read about 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. Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Trump's authoritarianism merits mention. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- It does not matter if it does merit mention or not; you can still be banned for edit warring. When you are reverted, the best thing to do is to go to the talk and seek consensus for your proposed edits. Prcc27 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring, again
I'll give you a few hours to revert your move of Fernández's comments on Fiducia supplicans, otherwise I will take this to WP:AN3. You have repeatedly, unilaterally defied consensus. You will be blocked if you fail to self-revert, as you appear to regularly edit-war. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is no consensus in the church on the matter. Who are the other editors who agree with you? The only people involved in this discussion presently are me and you. I started a request for comments to decide this. (Since we're clearly not going to agree.)
- On another note, you clearly have a grudge against me, probably because I'm a liberal Catholic. You're conservative. Again, that's fine. We're free to disagree... but stop being so stunningly rude and attempting to trip me up so I get banned.
- Political disagreements shouldn't be taken personally.
- I started a RFC. Thanks. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your process thus far has been 1.) make an edit 2.) start a discussion when it gets reverted 3.) when multiple editors disagree with you, revert it back to what you want anyway 4.) start an RfC in the hopes others will agree with you. Sorry, but when consensus disagrees with you, you can't just keep pushing the issue. Also, I did nothing to trip you up—given your talk page, you seem plenty competent at edit warring on your own. Don't make assumptions about my identity, by the way; you'd be surprised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! ShirtNShoesPls,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
|
- I'll check it out. Thank you! ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Season of Swatting, you may be blocked from editing. Restoring a reverted page move without consensus violates policy. Please immediately undo your actions. Pbritti (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:RM/CM for guidance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The other editor supported the move. Neither title is perfect. However, the proposed change is the superior choice at the moment. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then propose the move. Barring a SNOW close or extended discussion, that process will take roughly a week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The other editor supported the move. Neither title is perfect. However, the proposed change is the superior choice at the moment. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shenna Bellows, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evacuation. 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) 06:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, ShirtNShoesPls
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bastun, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Miami mall incident, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
- Remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
- Click the button.
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bastun}}
. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)