User talk:165.120.15.119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Emilie Autumn. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (165.120.15.119) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please read WP:3RRBLP, and note that it explicitly states that "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy" is exempted from the 3RR rule. Adding such material isn't, and if you do so again, I shall have no choice but to raise the matter at WP:ANI. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:BLP does it say that BLP material must come directly from the subject? Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why you feel that LGBTQ Nation is an unreliable source. I don't jump to that conclusion after looking at their about page.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just add that if all BLP material was required to come directly from the subject, we wouldn't have any BLPs at all, as such articles would fail our sourcing requirements. Adam9007 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to argue that a quiz that mentions someone in passing is remotely appropriate as a source for their sexuality, I suggest you do so at WP:BLPN, where others can participate in the discussion. I suggest you respond in the thread I started earlier. [2] 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about verifiability here, not notability. Adam9007 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So how does the fact the subject's mention is passing make the content any less reliable? Adam9007 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the concept of discussing this at WP:BLPN is it that you find so difficult to understand? I am not going to engage in a private conversation with you, while others are commenting elsewhere. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Autumn[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emilie Autumn#Asexual (I can't ping an IP). Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your insightful observations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.120.15.119&oldid=938604003"