User talk:09I500

If you need help
Ask me or you can ask at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a complicated place full of policies and guidelines and the like. You'll get used to it eventually, but it can be intimidating. Feel free to ask questions--seriously, don't be ashamed. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Preview button
Hi mate, as you start getting used to things, try the Show preview button. It allows you to see what you're editing/adding before you add it. Helps to prevent accidental deletions like this. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Does the preview page notify you in some way if somebody else already edited the page before you? 09I500 (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Frankfurt School. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. ''If you see a problem with an article, try to resolve it on the Talk page before putting templates in the article. '' Dave Dial (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. But I rather feel that the other editor is disrupting The Devil's Advocate. He should put his dispute on the talk page before starting an edit war. He also removed my templates twice even though they say you can't remove them until the dispute is resolved. I don't like that disruptive editing so I am reverting it per WP:REVERT Really the subsection is a POV mess. :(

Your recent editing history at Frankfurt School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You have surpassed 3RR. Any further reverts, whether outside the 24 hours, without Talk page discussion will be reported.'' Dave Dial (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You got it totally wrong, THEY are reverting my template. They are not allowed to remove the template without solving the dispute. It clearly says "don't remove it until the dispute is solved". There is plenty of talk on the talk page. Just because I didn't put any talk on the talk page doesn't mean I can't help other editors involved in a dispute. The subsection is a POV mess. Calling it a conspiracy theory is WP:UNDUE. The only source provided claiming it is a conspiracy is a weblog from a psychologist. 09I500 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Notification
Avono (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate sanctions discussion
There is a discussion related to your conduct at General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits contravene Wikipedia policy and the reliable sources which support the section and discuss the fact that the allegations are false. Please desist, as you are simply digging the hole deeper and deeper. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop your edit warring and WP:Battleground behaviour. You are clearly on a personal crusade. Use the talk page of the article in question if you don't agree before pulling nonsense like this. 09I500 (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that your edits do not depict a living person in a false light, given the extensive sourcing for the word in question. The biographies of living persons policy prohibits editors from using Wikipedia as a platform to express their personal opinions about living people, and requires that all material about living people be sourced to indisputable reliable sources — particularly contentious material. As it is impeccably sourced that the allegations are false, removing that word to change the meaning of the sentence against the reliable sources is prohibited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the article does not depict any living person in a false light.09I500 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct, because it describes the allegations in question as false, as the reliable sources extensively discuss. Mentioning the allegations without mentioning that they are false does depict a living person in a false light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, regardless of whether the allegations are false. The statement is entirely and factually correct. 09I500 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, no. That's lying by omission, quite obviously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply choosing not to mention something does not equal lying by omission. We're also not mentionning what the allegations are about. Is that lying? Obviously not. 09I500 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2015 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at 4chan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bjelleklang -  talk 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In accordance with the community-imposed sanctions (and those soon to be endorsed by the arbitration committee), you are now also topic-banned, for an indefinite period, from all edits related to the Gamergate controversy, broadly construed. This includes edits both on article content and in discussions. The WP:GS/GG page (or, in the near future, WP:AC/DS) contains information on how to appeal this sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
As of this notice, you are hereby topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to any gender-related dispute or controversy under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions. This explicitly includes GamerGate, any and all content to do with rape, and any gender- or sexuality-related content on articles such as 4chan. This sanction is in response to your repeated edit-warring, accusing others of pushing a POV, and what I believe is your battleground mentality. You may request reconsideration after six months of constructive contributions elsewhere. You may also appeal through the process described at WP:AC/DS. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not treated any wikipedia page as a battleground, nor any talk page. I have simply enforcing Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLP and WP:Libel.

In addition
Please read this:

— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban immediately after its imposition, and BLP violations immediately after being notified of the BP discretionary sanctions, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * Aren't AE blocks limited to a maximum of one year per WP:ACDS? Cheers, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Emma Sulkowicz
Please stop edit warring in violation of WP:BLP on Emma Sulkowicz. See talk:Emma Sulkowicz --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I should not be blocked here for BLP violations. Especially not from rape and gender related articles as I have not even touched those never before. The irony here is that I am using the exact same terms that I learned from the Gamergate controversy article. The lede used to have in it for a long time "false allegations against Zoe Quinn" and it still has it now in another section. I think it's incredibly stupid that I am blocked for enforcing BLP yet it is the exact same way how others enforce BLP. 09I500 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what exactly what you want copied to WP:AE for your appeal? --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)