Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Please do not add unreferenced or
poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about
living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to
Brianna Wu. (Redacted)
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Gamaliel ( talk) 15:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edits at Brianna Wu concern a subject who's been the target of significant online harassment and criticism. As such it's important their wikipedia page remain as positive as possible. Thank you. 107.107.62.196 ( talk) 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)It's not a question of either positivity or truth. The article should comply with Wikipedia policy -- especially in adhering closely and relying exclusively on reliable sources, and also ensuring a neutral point of view by taking care to avoid assigning WP:UNDUE weight to fringe beliefs. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Hi, you might want to nominate the above article for deletion if you believe it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? Regards JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
16:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC){{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC){{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
17:42, 25 January 2019 (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 recently shown interest in 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.
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 18:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Vivil ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason for my ban is bogus. You're stating that I've insisted on anything related to those guidelines when in reality only non-resolved issues were personal attacks on me. If you just want me banned then just state that reason for my ban is not agreeing with admins on their personal opinions. If defending myself from personal attacks is worthy of ban then just state it and we're over. If it's not then remove this ban because I can prove this is the only reason I was banned. Please use
{{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
21:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are really doubling down on the reason given for your block. I strongly advise not doing that. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an unblock request with a chance of success. Yamla ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@
Yamla: There is no proof in my ban reason. If there is argument or proof then please show it to me and I can reply. I cannot disprove the evidence or argument where there is none.
I'll not lie just to get unbanned. There is no place where in the end I didn't reach an agreement with other users except for personal attacks on myself. But it's not what's written as reason for my ban. Please use
{{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I have revoked talk page access. Your behaviour here has been completely inappropriate and we've wasted enough time with you. You are welcome to use WP:UTRS to request an unblock after you've read and understood WP:GAB but I warn you, if you continue there like you have here, you'll lose that final avenue for unblock. -- Yamla ( talk) 12:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Please do not add unreferenced or
poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about
living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to
Brianna Wu. (Redacted)
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Gamaliel ( talk) 15:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edits at Brianna Wu concern a subject who's been the target of significant online harassment and criticism. As such it's important their wikipedia page remain as positive as possible. Thank you. 107.107.62.196 ( talk) 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)It's not a question of either positivity or truth. The article should comply with Wikipedia policy -- especially in adhering closely and relying exclusively on reliable sources, and also ensuring a neutral point of view by taking care to avoid assigning WP:UNDUE weight to fringe beliefs. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Hi, you might want to nominate the above article for deletion if you believe it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? Regards JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
16:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC){{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC){{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
17:42, 25 January 2019 (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 recently shown interest in 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.
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 18:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Vivil ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason for my ban is bogus. You're stating that I've insisted on anything related to those guidelines when in reality only non-resolved issues were personal attacks on me. If you just want me banned then just state that reason for my ban is not agreeing with admins on their personal opinions. If defending myself from personal attacks is worthy of ban then just state it and we're over. If it's not then remove this ban because I can prove this is the only reason I was banned. Please use
{{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
21:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are really doubling down on the reason given for your block. I strongly advise not doing that. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an unblock request with a chance of success. Yamla ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@
Yamla: There is no proof in my ban reason. If there is argument or proof then please show it to me and I can reply. I cannot disprove the evidence or argument where there is none.
I'll not lie just to get unbanned. There is no place where in the end I didn't reach an agreement with other users except for personal attacks on myself. But it's not what's written as reason for my ban. Please use
{{Reply to}}
Vivil
🗪
22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I have revoked talk page access. Your behaviour here has been completely inappropriate and we've wasted enough time with you. You are welcome to use WP:UTRS to request an unblock after you've read and understood WP:GAB but I warn you, if you continue there like you have here, you'll lose that final avenue for unblock. -- Yamla ( talk) 12:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)