User talk:PorziaMedici

Welcome
Thank you PorziaMedici (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salisbury Group (March 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salisbury Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Salisbury Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Salisbury_Group Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Salisbury_Group reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

George Eaton
If you want to talk about the text in the George Eaton article, you should do it on the Talk page rather than through tit-for-tat reversion. WP:BRD discusses the process that's best practice: make a bold edit (bold meaning without prior discussion), then when it's reverted, start a conversation on the Talk page (here) and make your case. In particular, articles that are biographies of living people have to follow strict standards and the text in the article should not make any claims which aren't clearly backed by the sources cited. Hope that helps, and I'm happy to discuss the appropriate text for the article on the article's Talk page. Ralbegen (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hi PorziaMedici! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Identity politics that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Conservatism sidebar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Salisbury Group
Hello, PorziaMedici. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salisbury Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Non-binary gender. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Non-binary gender, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Discretionary sanctions alert
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you review the following policies and guidelines before you continue editing on gender-related articles:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH
 * WP:EW
 * WP:BRD
 * WP:TRUTH
 * WP:RS

September 2021
Your recent editing history at Graham Linehan 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&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.I note you have previously and recently been warned by two other editors for your editing in gender-related areas. You would do well to read the links they posted. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing on gender related topics after previous warnings, also edit-warring against consensus at Graham Linehan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I engaged with others in the discussion page, and followed Wikipedia's consensus guidelines. Accusing Graham Linehan of being against trans people is not only highly contentious, but also potentially dangerous.
 * As an administrator, you have a responsibility to make sure that Wikipedia articles are written from neutral point of view. You have not lived up to your responsibility in respect to Linehan's article. It is a character assassination, and not a reasoned encyclopaedic article. PorziaMedici (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)