User talk:Ironman1104

A barnstar for you!
Very kind. Some people don't write well! Ironman1104 (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord Polak
The FT article (ref 1) has a lot more juicy info that could be added to the article. Afraid I don't have time right now to DIY. SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (I think it is paywalled, but registering lets you access a few articles for free). SmartSE (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Right Honourable
Please stop your incorrect removal of Right Honourable. See The Right Honourable for referenced details. DuncanHill (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop rv-ing it. Check the title of the relevant individual in the House of Lords. PCs are Rt Hon. others are not. Ironman1104 17:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple editors have raised this issue with you. You need to stop. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Er. no they haven't. Who are these multiples?

While writing, what is your explanation for the formal titles of the relevant individuals being given on HL website without Rt Hon prefix. It may be that archaic usage once attached the title to some peers, but it is not modern usage. If you can improve on the HL as a source, feel free. Similarly, if you can provide a source for any of your candidates for this prefix, go ahead. But you cannot. Ironman1104 17:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Who? Two editors in the thread right above this one for a start! DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. One might note that given every article has 'Rt Hon.' and it is the accepted style for life peers, that you might be in the wrong instead of literally everyone else. Please desist: you are also breaking 3RR now. · &#124; (talk - contributions) 10:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)}

Your signature
Hi, just letting you know that per WP:SIGLINK, your signature must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. If you've already corrected this, thanks! If not, the signature guideline pages discusses how to correct any custom signature so it complies. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * == Introduction to contentious topics ==

Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

April 2023
Hello, I'm Pokelova. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Dylan Mulvaney have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. --Pokelova (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dylan Mulvaney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. HeyElliott (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your problem with historical fact? DM was in fact born male. No? Ironman1104 15:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Ironman1104 15:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dylan Mulvaney 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; read about 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&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Beccaynr (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do you say I’m edit warring? And what’s your issue with fear of facts? Ironman1104 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Ironman1104 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at User talk:Beccaynr, you may be blocked from editing. ''You may wish to review MOS:GENDERID to help answer your article content question, and to further discuss article content on the article Talk page. Thank you,'' Beccaynr (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Logged warning
Ironman1104, considering your recent poor behaviour at Dylan Mulvaney, as well as past behaviour in similar articles, I'm formally warning you that, if you continue with these types of edits within the gender and sexuality contentious topic, you will be sanctioned. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to make up pretend facts? You know that Dylan M was born male and that sex is unchanging. You do not make something so by wishing it so. You’re just pretending. I’m not in the least bothered about your threatened sanctions. They will not make untruths true. And you know I’m right, but lack the courage, or the scientific nous, or both, to admit the truth. Stop pretending. It’s pathetic. Kind regards. Ironman1104 21:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Ironman1104 21:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * Please treat this as an appeal.
 * The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to promulgate matters which are unsupported by evidence and which are scientifically wrong.
 * My principal editorial remark that Dylan M was “born male” and (not in an article itself) that his pretence that he is a woman (or a 26 year old “girl”) is the product of dysmorphia, are both unarguably factually accurate.
 * Your “ban” does not follow any further alleged transgressions on my part, but is the product of personal pique when I called out your pretence. It was grossly improper for you to adjudge a “ban” when my comment directly addressed your personal error of science and fact. Ironman1104 21:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reply to my warning, in addition to the linked diffs, shows that your editing pattern pushes a specific WP:POV that goes against how reliable sources deal with the subject, as well as how the community sees the issue. That you want to dig in further makes me unwilling to undo the topic ban at this moment. If you want, you can open a thread at WP:AE. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * “Unwilling to undo …?”
 * my complaint was, and it is, that you are an inappropriate person to determine anything against me since you have reacted out of personal pique and not by reference to any further editing by me. I have not breached your “warning” I have called out your impropriety in continuing to act when you are the subject of personal criticism for your lack of understanding of science. Please get a grip with, and engage with, my appeal rather than fudging it.
 * My point was that you have taken personal offence, and have not reacted to editing by me. You seem rather out of your depth, which is another reason for it being improper for you to take action “against” me. Ironman1104 17:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out in my message above, as well as the topic ban message, the issue are your edits to pages and discussions related to gender and sexuality. Since your reply to my warning showed you'd continue pushing that specific POV, which has been disruptive in those pages, I though a topic ban was warranted. I don't see why you think I took personal offence to your response. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 19:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ironman, please explain the latter of these statements, in light of the former. Both were made after 's formal warning to you:
 * Why do you think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to make up pretend facts? You know that Dylan M was born male and that sex is unchanging. You do not make something so by wishing it so. You’re just pretending. I’m not in the least bothered about your threatened sanctions. They will not make untruths true.… Stop pretending. It’s pathetic.
 * you have reacted out of personal pique and not by reference to any further editing by me
 * It is abundantly clear that your ban was after a further breach of MOS:GENDERID after you were warned; the fact that it took place in discussion on your user talk page does not excuse your flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policies. Accordingly, this administrator endorses the ban and is satisfied Isabelle Belato acted out of consideration of your conduct and not from any grudge or bias they have toward you. Further, your conduct here and at User talk:Beccaynr enters the realm of personal attacks—conduct that could result in a block without taking the contentious topics restrictions into consideration.Your edits to topic areas outside of the scope of gender-related disputes and associated people has been good—honestly, that is probably the saving grace that got you topic banned instead of blocked from editing the entire site. However, users subject to topic bans typically get no leeway and can get blocked for any edit that violates the ban. Additionally, if your conduct towards other editors continues down this adversarial path, it is possible that the community will no longer see your contributions as a net positive.I humbly suggest that it is in your best interest to find other topics, edit constructively there, and steer clear of this entire issue for some time. With six months of solid contributions and no further issues, this administrator could even support lifting your ban at that time. Now, though, you have to prove to the community that you are willing and able to edit cooperatively. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Who are you? I’ve explained my view. Try applying your “professional level of English” (what?) to grappling with it. Ironman1104 03:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)