User talk:75.140.253.89

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (75.140.253.89) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did  at Shaun King (activist), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Wikipedia is not a platform for sharing personal opinions about people. Your personal opinion of someone's ethnicity is irrelevant and has been redacted. Continuing to post such claims may lead to sanctions.'' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement request Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. NW ( Talk ) 20:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

you are confusing me with your abbreviations []. what does "non-AE" mean? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note to Self:
remove personal attacks (accusations of racism, sexism, etc, by replacing them with RPA


 * A description of behavior is not a personal attack. Replacing editor's concerns about your approach might get you blocked again for disruptive editing.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 16:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a racist is a very strong accusation and a defamation of character. It is a deeply cutting attack, and without any strong evidence a serious violation on so many levels. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you provided plenty of evidence for an accusation like that. Most reasonable people will indeed conclude that.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Superb execution of gaslighting and well-poisoning tactics. Now anyone who will try to make anything that even poses a semblance of siding with me will be branded as "unreasonable". Worse, they might be racist! Or maybe something even worse than that! Bravo. I'm impressed. You really must let me know which master you learned your persuasive debate tactics from so that I may also seek tutelage! -75.140.253.89 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Is it really appropriate to use RfC for discussion of a source's reliability? I've been ordered to set up an RfC on a BLP talkpage for a disputed source. I don't even know how to do this, especially how to categorize the RfC. Which category do I use?

-75.140.253.89 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a noticeboard for that. See WP:RS/N. A RfC is not required. --Majora (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was told to do an RfC because a previous RS/N post, in the aforementioned editor's opinion, the "RSN went nowhere", and that I need to do an RfC. Do I indeed need to do an RfC? Will I be able to move an archived RS/N discussion back into the RS/N? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You could open a new [WP:RS/N]] or You could hold an WP:RFC either would work. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)