Hi Stephanie921! I noticed your contributions and wanted 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! Megaman en m ( talk) 14:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Stephanie921 ( talk) 15:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at RRR (film). 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. Do not remove sources and tag using misleading edit summaries. There is nothing called WP:INDIANEXPRESS, instead WP:INDIANEXP, which is considered reliable at WP:RSP. Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe you are misinterpreting what is written at
WP:FOXNEWS. It does not imply, as you said in an edit summary, "Fox News is advised against for political claims in general
". It says that "There is no consensus..." There is no reason that Fox News cannot be used as a source for such a benign claim as Pence being Trump's running mate. Furthermore, the
WP:BRD cycle is Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss. --
Spiffy sperry (
talk) 22:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Why change every instance of "director" to "directress" on pages where the subject is female? If you want to change it, and do so properly, I'd suggest running an WP:RfC, then, if it succeeds, a bot can do it instead. That would probably take less time than doing so manually, without first obtaining consensus for the mass change (which, I would hypothesise, would likely take an infinite length of time, as, based on what I've seen previously, you'd probably be blocked before you got a tenth of the way in). To get this change to occurr, the majority of reliable sources need to refer to female person who directs films as a "directress". Just because a dictionary does, doesn't mean a lot. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Right great wrongs as well. Also, you've been warned before about WP:BRD, and, though based on your revert of Czello, you haven't paid much attention to that policy. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I did the same thing with Czello too after my initial revert Stephanie921 ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Just saw your comment on your talk page about having not seen my new section. I apologise for what I said about you needing being nicer, since you hadn't seen the message I was talking about Stephanie921 ( talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
{{ping|Mako001}}
. You can do the same to "ping" any registered user.
Mako001
(C)
(T) 🇺🇦 14:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Sorry, I reverted your changes to the lead of the four parts of the Ring. If you think the sequence is lead-worthy, please begin a discussion on the talk of one of them. I believe that a click on Der Ring des Nibelungen clarifies the sequence. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. DatGuy Talk Contribs 13:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
82.132.215.149 ( talk) 20:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? Because this [4] is an obvious violation of it. 82.132.216.72 ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts( [6]) and
You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits [...] as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified( [7]). Similarly, if you want to avoid being accused of wrongdoing at ANI, you should avoid wrongdoing. Your behaviour at Abortion in Vermont was poor: There is normally no requirement of you to interact with me, but if you are engaged in a content dispute with me, you have to communicate. Don't want to talk to me? Fine, but then don't undo my edits.
Hi Stephanie, I thought I'd bring my comments here to try to explain better my post at
WP:ANI. You wrote I believed that I had explained my views on the article at the initial discussion between me, the IP and @User:VictimOfEntropy but I'm sorry if I hadn't clearly enough.
You made a single comment on
Talk:Abortion in Vermont that basically said you were reverting because the IP's edit didn't have consensus. I'm assuming you felt that the edit was against consensus because VictimOfEntropy had objected. VOE did at least make an attempt at arguing why VOE felt the content should be retained, but then abandoned the discussion. However, you continued to revert the IPs' deletions. If VOE doesn't agree with the edits, VOE can engage on the talk page. If you don't agree with the edits, you can engage on the talk page. The talk page discussion should concentrate on why or why not the content should be kept, not on who can or can't delete something or when...that's a meaningless tangent.
You said in one of your edit summaries, "People not responding to you doesn't mean you can get your way.
However, consensus-based editing doesn't mean you can declare an objection then refuse to discuss it. If we care enough about a topic to revert, we should be willing to engage with the other editor to compare our points of view and reach an agreement (or head to
dispute resolution).
Do you disagree with the specific challenges to the text themselves or are you just backing up another editor? Why didn't you object to this deletion? Was it because it wasn't an IP editor?
Anyway, just some stuff to think about. I have to sign off for the evening but I'll watch your talk page in case you want to continue the discussion here. Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Hi, Stephanie921, I had already worked out a sight addition to the section I just added here moments ago, but ran into an edit conflict when the section was removed. You are within your rights to remove any content from your Talk page you wish to (with rare exceptions like declined block appeals). You said you moved the removed section to the article Talk page "to prevent same convo happening twice", and although your instincts about not fragmenting a conversation are good, the destination was not the right venue for it. Article talk pages are for talking about content disputes, and would include the question of what wording to use in the article, such as whether other editors agree with your wording or not. Its perfectly fine to talk about that at the article Talk page. However, the topic of edit warring is a user behavioral issue; that should be discussed at a user talk page, and not at an article Talk page (except in passing, in order to link it to a user page discussion). See WP:TALK. The conversation you removed was about behavior (edit warring) and should have been discussed here (if at all). You're free to remove it, but please don't move it to an article page; that's not the right venue for it. (Now that you already did move it, you should probably just leave things as they are at this point, rather than confuse things even more by moving it again, but I won't object if you move it again, unless third parties have already responded at the article Talk page.) In brief: discuss article content at article Talk pages; discuss user behavior at user talk pages. Hope this helps, Mathglot ( talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I've bumped into you twice now on talk pages! Keep up all your good work :)
Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 06:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
idk how i found you but here is a adorable kitten :D
Lolkikmoddi (
talk) 13:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Any additional comments are no longer constructive. They've been blocked and their talk page access has been revoked. Drop the stick. DatGuy Talk Contribs 17:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds German. Another cultural peculiarity. I speak a little German, though "redneck" is meine Mutterzunge -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I notice you undit my edit at The Second Jungle Book: Mowgli & Baloo. However, until/unless there is another RfC with a different consensus, I think there is a general consensus (from past RfCs, and as a general practice on other articles such as Inception) to include the credited name as a footnote. It seems to me, the fact that there is an ongoing discussion which might lead to another RfC which might lead to a different consensus does not mean we shouldn't implement the current consensus. What do you think? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I have removed your PROD tag for the following reasons;
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Dwayne Johnson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Why would you move this? — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Indef block rationale subsequently updated to abusing multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. Mathglot ( talk) 05:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Stephanie921! I only now got your old post about an alleged mistake of mine, which I cannaot retrieve again. What kind of mistake do you assume? Note that we muddled through three different biographies of Hitler in school. So, be careful, please. HJJHolm ( talk) 08:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Stephanie921! I noticed your contributions and wanted 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! Megaman en m ( talk) 14:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Stephanie921 ( talk) 15:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at RRR (film). 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. Do not remove sources and tag using misleading edit summaries. There is nothing called WP:INDIANEXPRESS, instead WP:INDIANEXP, which is considered reliable at WP:RSP. Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe you are misinterpreting what is written at
WP:FOXNEWS. It does not imply, as you said in an edit summary, "Fox News is advised against for political claims in general
". It says that "There is no consensus..." There is no reason that Fox News cannot be used as a source for such a benign claim as Pence being Trump's running mate. Furthermore, the
WP:BRD cycle is Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss. --
Spiffy sperry (
talk) 22:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Why change every instance of "director" to "directress" on pages where the subject is female? If you want to change it, and do so properly, I'd suggest running an WP:RfC, then, if it succeeds, a bot can do it instead. That would probably take less time than doing so manually, without first obtaining consensus for the mass change (which, I would hypothesise, would likely take an infinite length of time, as, based on what I've seen previously, you'd probably be blocked before you got a tenth of the way in). To get this change to occurr, the majority of reliable sources need to refer to female person who directs films as a "directress". Just because a dictionary does, doesn't mean a lot. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Right great wrongs as well. Also, you've been warned before about WP:BRD, and, though based on your revert of Czello, you haven't paid much attention to that policy. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I did the same thing with Czello too after my initial revert Stephanie921 ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Just saw your comment on your talk page about having not seen my new section. I apologise for what I said about you needing being nicer, since you hadn't seen the message I was talking about Stephanie921 ( talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
{{ping|Mako001}}
. You can do the same to "ping" any registered user.
Mako001
(C)
(T) 🇺🇦 14:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Sorry, I reverted your changes to the lead of the four parts of the Ring. If you think the sequence is lead-worthy, please begin a discussion on the talk of one of them. I believe that a click on Der Ring des Nibelungen clarifies the sequence. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. DatGuy Talk Contribs 13:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
82.132.215.149 ( talk) 20:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? Because this [4] is an obvious violation of it. 82.132.216.72 ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts( [6]) and
You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits [...] as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified( [7]). Similarly, if you want to avoid being accused of wrongdoing at ANI, you should avoid wrongdoing. Your behaviour at Abortion in Vermont was poor: There is normally no requirement of you to interact with me, but if you are engaged in a content dispute with me, you have to communicate. Don't want to talk to me? Fine, but then don't undo my edits.
Hi Stephanie, I thought I'd bring my comments here to try to explain better my post at
WP:ANI. You wrote I believed that I had explained my views on the article at the initial discussion between me, the IP and @User:VictimOfEntropy but I'm sorry if I hadn't clearly enough.
You made a single comment on
Talk:Abortion in Vermont that basically said you were reverting because the IP's edit didn't have consensus. I'm assuming you felt that the edit was against consensus because VictimOfEntropy had objected. VOE did at least make an attempt at arguing why VOE felt the content should be retained, but then abandoned the discussion. However, you continued to revert the IPs' deletions. If VOE doesn't agree with the edits, VOE can engage on the talk page. If you don't agree with the edits, you can engage on the talk page. The talk page discussion should concentrate on why or why not the content should be kept, not on who can or can't delete something or when...that's a meaningless tangent.
You said in one of your edit summaries, "People not responding to you doesn't mean you can get your way.
However, consensus-based editing doesn't mean you can declare an objection then refuse to discuss it. If we care enough about a topic to revert, we should be willing to engage with the other editor to compare our points of view and reach an agreement (or head to
dispute resolution).
Do you disagree with the specific challenges to the text themselves or are you just backing up another editor? Why didn't you object to this deletion? Was it because it wasn't an IP editor?
Anyway, just some stuff to think about. I have to sign off for the evening but I'll watch your talk page in case you want to continue the discussion here. Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Hi, Stephanie921, I had already worked out a sight addition to the section I just added here moments ago, but ran into an edit conflict when the section was removed. You are within your rights to remove any content from your Talk page you wish to (with rare exceptions like declined block appeals). You said you moved the removed section to the article Talk page "to prevent same convo happening twice", and although your instincts about not fragmenting a conversation are good, the destination was not the right venue for it. Article talk pages are for talking about content disputes, and would include the question of what wording to use in the article, such as whether other editors agree with your wording or not. Its perfectly fine to talk about that at the article Talk page. However, the topic of edit warring is a user behavioral issue; that should be discussed at a user talk page, and not at an article Talk page (except in passing, in order to link it to a user page discussion). See WP:TALK. The conversation you removed was about behavior (edit warring) and should have been discussed here (if at all). You're free to remove it, but please don't move it to an article page; that's not the right venue for it. (Now that you already did move it, you should probably just leave things as they are at this point, rather than confuse things even more by moving it again, but I won't object if you move it again, unless third parties have already responded at the article Talk page.) In brief: discuss article content at article Talk pages; discuss user behavior at user talk pages. Hope this helps, Mathglot ( talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I've bumped into you twice now on talk pages! Keep up all your good work :)
Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 06:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
idk how i found you but here is a adorable kitten :D
Lolkikmoddi (
talk) 13:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Any additional comments are no longer constructive. They've been blocked and their talk page access has been revoked. Drop the stick. DatGuy Talk Contribs 17:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds German. Another cultural peculiarity. I speak a little German, though "redneck" is meine Mutterzunge -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I notice you undit my edit at The Second Jungle Book: Mowgli & Baloo. However, until/unless there is another RfC with a different consensus, I think there is a general consensus (from past RfCs, and as a general practice on other articles such as Inception) to include the credited name as a footnote. It seems to me, the fact that there is an ongoing discussion which might lead to another RfC which might lead to a different consensus does not mean we shouldn't implement the current consensus. What do you think? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I have removed your PROD tag for the following reasons;
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Dwayne Johnson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Why would you move this? — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Indef block rationale subsequently updated to abusing multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. Mathglot ( talk) 05:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Stephanie921! I only now got your old post about an alleged mistake of mine, which I cannaot retrieve again. What kind of mistake do you assume? Note that we muddled through three different biographies of Hitler in school. So, be careful, please. HJJHolm ( talk) 08:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)