![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
[hostile "Welcome" message deleted]
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-1932 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.
Doug Weller
talk
11:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi.
I wondered if you wanted to have an alliance to help each other.
On the "list of terrorist incidents in London" page, they keep removing a few bombing attacks carried out by the suffragettes between 1912-1914, because they think it's anti-feminist blah blah blah. If I reinstate it they will just keep blocking me, but if an established user (you) could revert their deletes then they wouldn't be able to make the argument that it's just me trying to reinstate it.
If you'd reinstate it, I'd help support your edits on other pages in return. I know that you previously tried to clarify on the 2011 London riots page that Mark Duggan's shooting was judged to be legal - I'd be happy to help you reinstate this statement in the intro again if you help me out.
Let me know ASAP. Soundofthedrums ( talk) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawn Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. 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) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't catch that the user was fixing a quote per WP:NOTCENSORED when they edited the 2011 England riots article. I see that you restored the changes; I'm glad to see that you did this - thank you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
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. You're clearly POV pushing, we are done with having the same argument linked to dodgy or misrepresented sources. Numerous editors have dismissed your dubious claims outright. Please stop. Bacondrum ( talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just as an FYI FFR: clerking is common at noticeboards. This link is to a failed proposal to formalize a system, but it explains the idea. It's fine to disagree that a particular clerical action was an improvement -- that too is common -- but clerking isn't unusual at many noticeboards across the project, including AN and ANI. You'll see people there closing discussions, collapsing stuff, asking people to strike a comment or revise it, whatever. We call that clerking. It's considered generally helpful. —valereee ( talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I am hereby formally giving you notice that on the talk page of Forstater v CDG, I am for the time being withdrawing from engaging with you.
The current engagements with you are not constructive. Primarily the tone you use is hostile and aggressive. I also believe you do not engage in viewing me as making any edits in good faith. As a result, I believe the discussions that you and I are likely to engage in are not going to be helpful or constructive, taking up more time than either of us should be, and would be a waste for both of us.
This is not a though blank cheque from me for you to impose your preferred version of the article. I will simply not be interacting with you on the talk page.
I am prepared to revise this position should you demonstrate and/or show signs of good faith towards me and tone down your unnecessary hostility.
I feel it is impossible at this given you have demonstrated intransigence, hostility and bad faith assumptions towards me, to work constructively with you.
I look forward to hopefully working collaboratively with you, and that you can make a show of good faith towards this.
I thank you for your understanding here.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn't want to say on the BvT talk page, because WP:NOTFORUM, but wanted to let you know I too have been knocked back the last few days. Got my annual flu vaccine last week and been utterly exhausted since! It's OK to take our time to get the page right. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Spiked (magazine). 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:
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.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
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 editorsbecause this is in the template which you have inappropriately placed on my Talk page. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I see that you have inappropriately removed a valid category based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. The category in question in simply a valid country sub category within an existing category tree, that the article was already included and clearly belonged in. Including it a country sub category was entirely appropriate and uncontroversial. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 07:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You have also done the same thing to me, removing the LGB alliance designation as a far-right extremist by reputable sources. You cite "angreed changes", what does that even mean? Your editing is clearly biased. Please do not jeopardise the intellectual honesty of wikipedia and report false things by omission. Kindly leave this article alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I think I meant "denounced" rather than "renounced". (I'll admit I'm not having much luck with this!)
"Denied" just doesn't feel strong enough. It feels like they gamely accepted being accused and put forward the case for the defence, whereas I wanted to get across the point that the accusation of the slur(s) by the BBC caused offence and outrage in itself to the victims and community (after the police had already given their reasons for rejecting the accusation and closing down that part of their investigation).
Romomusicfan (
talk)
10:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.This incident involved accusations of antisemitism on one side, and Islamophobia on the other. In view of the consensus that the JC is generally considered to be biased on these topics, and that ‘victim’ is a judgment as to who is right/wrong, I think that the word 'victim' should not be used.
But if it is ideological purity to require Wikipedians to believe that homosexuality is not an illness, women deserve equality with men and transgender people are valid then I am an ideological purist. The UCoC requires this so that nobody is unwelcome on the basis of identity. I am not a liberal and am here to build an encyclopedia based on existing sources, not to "seek the truth".[emphasis mine] The comment of yours which I linked suggested to me that you agree that it is permissible to question editors about their beliefs. Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is better pursued on the Talk page of the BBC controversies article. [9] Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:29, 1 January 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.
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) 15:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Please stick around there. A commitment to NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and a halfway decent understanding of sourcing rules is more than enough to be very effective and helpful. Other editors there also lack a medical background, and the ones that do can still make mistakes about NPOV etc., or edit like they are writing an academic article. Crossroads -talk- 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I raised your conduct at the administrator's noticeboard here. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sweet6970. I would very much like to see people engage in good faith, and look for common ground. My hope is we can dispense with this quickly and get back to constructive editing. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Heyo. A while back we did some good work together on the Bell v Tavistock appeal and was hoping for some advice. Do you think the judicial review Fair Play for Women brought against National Records of Scotland is notable enough to warrant its own article? I'm not sure of the notability requirements for legal cases, beyond WP:GNG. The judgement was released a few hours ago, and there are a number of RS covering it BBC, STV, The Guardian, The National, The Herald, The Telegraph. I've already made a note of the judgement at 2021 United Kingdom census#Legal challenge to 'What is your Sex' guidance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I realize the way I worded that may have been a bit more inflammatory than was necessary. Would it be okay if I just took out any reference to real living people? Endwise ( talk) 22:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I’m sorry that this account I am using put private info up. Me and a friend share an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoOldLadyFan ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand what it feels like to run out of patience, but
this is not a notably civil or constructive comment, particularly in response to interlocutors who have gone somewhat above and beyond to avoid snark, to AGF and to remain polite in the face of apparent hostility (e.g., I would not accept the outcome of a 3O
).
Disengagement, on the other hand, is a good thing. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:07, 22 March 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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have no idea what happened there, but my edit undid your edit. I was editing before you published, looks like a quirk of mobile editor. Completely unintentional, sorry. Tewdar 20:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, what are you doing? You've just undone all my changes- again. I'm trying to make the section consistent in referring to The Daily Telegraph each time. Do you have some objection to this? Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Alternate account Sweet69702 created 13 December 2022 because I have had trouble logging-in to my account. Sweet69702 ( talk) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Sweet6970,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk)
20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Metropolitan Police has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk)
22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Mridul Wadhwa. 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:
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. Inspector Eevee ( talk) 01:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree.I have made one revert on Mridul Wadhwa. This is not ‘repeatedly’. I recommend that you read WP:NPA which says that personal attacks include
Accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see
WP:CTVSDS.
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see
WP:CTVSDS.
These notes are just to inform you of the changeover from the former discretionary sanctions system to the new contentious topics system. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Spot on - you’re quite right of course. Springnuts ( talk) 13:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I often see you, always attached to smart edits. Thank you! Isthistwisted ( talk) 01:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed your edits in the Nanshe article, specifically their summaries in which you state birds are not animals. However, this seems to be a mistake - the class Aves is, in fact, classified as a part of the kingdom Animalia (as opposed to Fungi, Monera, etc). In other words, birds are animals. Hope this helps with further editing. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 09:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
As well as British usage:
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/ethnicity-race/
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/capsandabbr/caps
https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/ethnicity-religion-and-nationality
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/our-work/key-areas-of-work/race-discrimination
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/digital-design-toolkit/editorial-style-guide
Freee Contributor ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white).Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ( talk), via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
[hostile "Welcome" message deleted]
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-1932 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.
Doug Weller
talk
11:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi.
I wondered if you wanted to have an alliance to help each other.
On the "list of terrorist incidents in London" page, they keep removing a few bombing attacks carried out by the suffragettes between 1912-1914, because they think it's anti-feminist blah blah blah. If I reinstate it they will just keep blocking me, but if an established user (you) could revert their deletes then they wouldn't be able to make the argument that it's just me trying to reinstate it.
If you'd reinstate it, I'd help support your edits on other pages in return. I know that you previously tried to clarify on the 2011 London riots page that Mark Duggan's shooting was judged to be legal - I'd be happy to help you reinstate this statement in the intro again if you help me out.
Let me know ASAP. Soundofthedrums ( talk) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawn Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. 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) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't catch that the user was fixing a quote per WP:NOTCENSORED when they edited the 2011 England riots article. I see that you restored the changes; I'm glad to see that you did this - thank you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
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. You're clearly POV pushing, we are done with having the same argument linked to dodgy or misrepresented sources. Numerous editors have dismissed your dubious claims outright. Please stop. Bacondrum ( talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just as an FYI FFR: clerking is common at noticeboards. This link is to a failed proposal to formalize a system, but it explains the idea. It's fine to disagree that a particular clerical action was an improvement -- that too is common -- but clerking isn't unusual at many noticeboards across the project, including AN and ANI. You'll see people there closing discussions, collapsing stuff, asking people to strike a comment or revise it, whatever. We call that clerking. It's considered generally helpful. —valereee ( talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I am hereby formally giving you notice that on the talk page of Forstater v CDG, I am for the time being withdrawing from engaging with you.
The current engagements with you are not constructive. Primarily the tone you use is hostile and aggressive. I also believe you do not engage in viewing me as making any edits in good faith. As a result, I believe the discussions that you and I are likely to engage in are not going to be helpful or constructive, taking up more time than either of us should be, and would be a waste for both of us.
This is not a though blank cheque from me for you to impose your preferred version of the article. I will simply not be interacting with you on the talk page.
I am prepared to revise this position should you demonstrate and/or show signs of good faith towards me and tone down your unnecessary hostility.
I feel it is impossible at this given you have demonstrated intransigence, hostility and bad faith assumptions towards me, to work constructively with you.
I look forward to hopefully working collaboratively with you, and that you can make a show of good faith towards this.
I thank you for your understanding here.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn't want to say on the BvT talk page, because WP:NOTFORUM, but wanted to let you know I too have been knocked back the last few days. Got my annual flu vaccine last week and been utterly exhausted since! It's OK to take our time to get the page right. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Spiked (magazine). 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:
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.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
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 editorsbecause this is in the template which you have inappropriately placed on my Talk page. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I see that you have inappropriately removed a valid category based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. The category in question in simply a valid country sub category within an existing category tree, that the article was already included and clearly belonged in. Including it a country sub category was entirely appropriate and uncontroversial. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 07:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You have also done the same thing to me, removing the LGB alliance designation as a far-right extremist by reputable sources. You cite "angreed changes", what does that even mean? Your editing is clearly biased. Please do not jeopardise the intellectual honesty of wikipedia and report false things by omission. Kindly leave this article alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I think I meant "denounced" rather than "renounced". (I'll admit I'm not having much luck with this!)
"Denied" just doesn't feel strong enough. It feels like they gamely accepted being accused and put forward the case for the defence, whereas I wanted to get across the point that the accusation of the slur(s) by the BBC caused offence and outrage in itself to the victims and community (after the police had already given their reasons for rejecting the accusation and closing down that part of their investigation).
Romomusicfan (
talk)
10:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.This incident involved accusations of antisemitism on one side, and Islamophobia on the other. In view of the consensus that the JC is generally considered to be biased on these topics, and that ‘victim’ is a judgment as to who is right/wrong, I think that the word 'victim' should not be used.
But if it is ideological purity to require Wikipedians to believe that homosexuality is not an illness, women deserve equality with men and transgender people are valid then I am an ideological purist. The UCoC requires this so that nobody is unwelcome on the basis of identity. I am not a liberal and am here to build an encyclopedia based on existing sources, not to "seek the truth".[emphasis mine] The comment of yours which I linked suggested to me that you agree that it is permissible to question editors about their beliefs. Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is better pursued on the Talk page of the BBC controversies article. [9] Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:29, 1 January 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.
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) 15:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Please stick around there. A commitment to NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and a halfway decent understanding of sourcing rules is more than enough to be very effective and helpful. Other editors there also lack a medical background, and the ones that do can still make mistakes about NPOV etc., or edit like they are writing an academic article. Crossroads -talk- 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I raised your conduct at the administrator's noticeboard here. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sweet6970. I would very much like to see people engage in good faith, and look for common ground. My hope is we can dispense with this quickly and get back to constructive editing. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Heyo. A while back we did some good work together on the Bell v Tavistock appeal and was hoping for some advice. Do you think the judicial review Fair Play for Women brought against National Records of Scotland is notable enough to warrant its own article? I'm not sure of the notability requirements for legal cases, beyond WP:GNG. The judgement was released a few hours ago, and there are a number of RS covering it BBC, STV, The Guardian, The National, The Herald, The Telegraph. I've already made a note of the judgement at 2021 United Kingdom census#Legal challenge to 'What is your Sex' guidance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I realize the way I worded that may have been a bit more inflammatory than was necessary. Would it be okay if I just took out any reference to real living people? Endwise ( talk) 22:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I’m sorry that this account I am using put private info up. Me and a friend share an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoOldLadyFan ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand what it feels like to run out of patience, but
this is not a notably civil or constructive comment, particularly in response to interlocutors who have gone somewhat above and beyond to avoid snark, to AGF and to remain polite in the face of apparent hostility (e.g., I would not accept the outcome of a 3O
).
Disengagement, on the other hand, is a good thing. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:07, 22 March 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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have no idea what happened there, but my edit undid your edit. I was editing before you published, looks like a quirk of mobile editor. Completely unintentional, sorry. Tewdar 20:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, what are you doing? You've just undone all my changes- again. I'm trying to make the section consistent in referring to The Daily Telegraph each time. Do you have some objection to this? Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Alternate account Sweet69702 created 13 December 2022 because I have had trouble logging-in to my account. Sweet69702 ( talk) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Sweet6970,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk)
20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Metropolitan Police has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk)
22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Mridul Wadhwa. 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:
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. Inspector Eevee ( talk) 01:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree.I have made one revert on Mridul Wadhwa. This is not ‘repeatedly’. I recommend that you read WP:NPA which says that personal attacks include
Accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see
WP:CTVSDS.
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see
WP:CTVSDS.
These notes are just to inform you of the changeover from the former discretionary sanctions system to the new contentious topics system. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Spot on - you’re quite right of course. Springnuts ( talk) 13:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I often see you, always attached to smart edits. Thank you! Isthistwisted ( talk) 01:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed your edits in the Nanshe article, specifically their summaries in which you state birds are not animals. However, this seems to be a mistake - the class Aves is, in fact, classified as a part of the kingdom Animalia (as opposed to Fungi, Monera, etc). In other words, birds are animals. Hope this helps with further editing. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 09:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
As well as British usage:
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/ethnicity-race/
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/capsandabbr/caps
https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/ethnicity-religion-and-nationality
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/our-work/key-areas-of-work/race-discrimination
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/digital-design-toolkit/editorial-style-guide
Freee Contributor ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white).Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ( talk), via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)