User talk:User2083146168

Your thread has been archived

Hi Sridc! You created a thread called Are content disputes uncommon here? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wording in RfC close

Pointing to this in case you missed it. Now that the RfC position has been moved, I think you should remove that first sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Interracial attraction

Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial deletion, and I have a hard time believing this could not be highly controversial and make Wikipedia look ... bad. Can we bold and merge it? Or you can take this to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bearian: We can just merge. I don't see how merging would be controversial. I think attraction is a factor in marriage, and an article on Interracial marriage is an apt place to describe its factor of attraction if it is notable. Feel free to go ahead and merge the two articles; I'd put whatever is in Interracial attraction in the marriage article. —Srid^🍁 17:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for going along with the merger instead of deletion of Interracial attraction into Interracial marriage. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice: gender-related controversies

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

Template:Z33 Feminazi falls under these sanctions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feminazi

Please do not use article talk pages for criticizing the conduct of users, as you have done at Talk:Feminazi. Your accusations of "POV editing" are inappropriate and unlikely to get you what you want. You made numerous bold edits, I reverted some of them. Now is the part of the WP:BRD cycle where you should discuss any changes you think were problematic. It is not the time to cast aspersions on users who disagree with you. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You didn't revert "some of them"; you reverted almost all of them (although you did make various small improvements along the way). I've asked for a third opinion now. —Srid^🍁 15:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place to ensure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that they can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "They think this source is unreliable", but rather write "Disagreement about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you.

November 2019

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - It was User:Bacondrum that is actually edit warring. They removed some text from the lede. I reverted their removal, and challenged their edit, inviting to discussion in Talk page. After this, Bacondrum initiated an edit war instead of talking in Talk. —Srid^🍁 21:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You both went past WP:3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, can you please stop pinging me all the time, I don't need to be involved here. Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall pinging you in here? —Srid^🍁 22:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You linked to them above, writing [[User:Bacondrum]] which pings the user. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Nuetrality

On what grounds have you added a neutrality tag to the "Feminazi" article? You can't just add tags to help you win disputes. As it stands it looks like the tag was added tendentiously. What exactly is the neutrality issue? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

On mobile now. See the Talk page for sources I had added to balance the article, whose revert had made it unbalanced again. —Srid^🍁 04:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not evidence. Revert again and I'll make a report. It'll get us both banned for sure, but I'll accept that to stop your tendentious editing. Bacondrum (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please focus on the content. Also, no rush policy. There is an ongoing DRN too. You going to ANI (for no valid reason) will probably sabotage that. —Srid^🍁 05:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)