User talk:Thronedrei

Belated Welcome
Hello, Thronedrei, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

July 2014
Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) As it is written now, what you reverted it to, that isn't referenced either. I'm not saying that one wrong makes a right rather, the way it is written incorrectly suggests that the saying is one used to belittle women. As such feminists would/will use that kind of crap to pretend that it is a term created by men. I.E, it needs to made more clear that this term is used by women that feel that sexy boots belittle women, so they in turn belittle these women that wear them.

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Final warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes seriously.
Yes, Wikipedia takes content about living people VERY seriously, on EVERY space of the encyclopedia. When "discussing" controversial content about living people, you need to provide reliably published sources that support such claims.

If you wish to "discuss" editor behavior, the place is WP:ANI- but again, you will need to provide actual evidence at the notice board as well, and your own behaviors will be reviewed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again I provided reliable sources although I admit I did not link to them. The problem here is that Wikiepdia does not accept actual reality as a reliable source. As I mentioned in my post on your site; Wikipedia does not accept a youtube video as evidence. I.E if person makes a statement on a youtube video, this is not considered as a reliable source that person A has actually made the statement even if said video is one that has appeared on television. Only if a "newsmedia" (who by all means is NOT a real reliable source as they are a third party but for some reason is considered by Wikipedia to be reliable) reports on the youtube video, then it is for some reason all of a sudden considered reliable. I.E a video of Person A claiming that the Moon is alive appears on Youtube. Somebody makes an article about this on Wikipedia but the article is thrown out because Youtube videos are not considered reliable. Then a newsoutlet sees that video and writes and article that Person A was saying that the Moon tastes like Cheese (even though Person A never said this in the video.) By Wikipedia standards it would be okay to write an article that Person A claimed that the moon tastes like Cheese even though this clearly is a lie -- but writing an article of what was actually said in the video is not allowed. See the problem here? Wikipedia really needs to fix this approach to things... because as it is now, Wikipedia is NOT an Ecyclopedia or anything of the kind -- it is just a propaganda tool that spews back whatever narrative that controlled media spins.
 * Now as for reporting redpen for abuse. Sure I could do that; but it would not work as nothing would come from it. I know how modding works. Modding is very much a social club where only mods that doesn't follow the "norm" of what the other active mods do. Only mods that actually try to fix wrongs with sites and the established "norm" are ones that can get punished. Its because anything else would be like throwing bricks in a glasshouse. If they punished Redpen for doing what he did, then they would open up a slushgate for all the mods to be called out on crap they pull. I have no problem with being reviewed as I have nothing to hide -- but as far as I see it would be a waste of energy and time as absolutely nothing would come out from it. So why did I ask about this on Redpens site? I did this top point out what I SHOULD do, because redpen really did abuse his power. Reporting him in reality however would not work though as I explained previously... if anything they would probably try to make a case if me "slandering" a mod when I was just pointing out his abuse.--Thronedrei (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Fascism, you may be blocked from editing. ''

Also, as the at the top Talk:Fascism explains, this has already been discussed countless times. '' Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thronedrei, you obviously have a rather entrenched worldview. But if you want to edit here, you need to do so collaboratively. The things you said on the talk page were factually incorrect. If you want to challenge a long-standing consensus, you need to prevent reliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll add that I don't see any Wikimedia staff editing the page (the different language Wikipedias, such as this one, have no staff). Doug Weller  talk 15:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny. I responded to this on Grayfells talkpage and his response was to delete my message to him without addressing it. Id like to contest the conclusion that Grayfells and other people seem to make. They have never provided any proof that what I do is what they claim. I'd argue that what they are doing is abusing the system in order to remove anything they dislike and disagree with. How can a discussion be had, if discussion about a subject is banned? This is why people call wikipedia a cancer, not because of the left leaning views, but how the mods and admins act when dealing with users. As such since discussion can't be had on talk pages... where are discussions about the threads be had?


 * The person I replied to in the Fascism talkpage made an assertion, to which I replied with another assertion. Can anyone show any proof that what I wrote was just my original thought? Of course not, nor can anyone assert that the person I replied to wasn't guilty of what I was deemed to be. Rather when reverting my comment, the person doing so becomes guilty of the very thing that it was suggested I was. Thing is, when we don't actually provide a source, this argument could always be made.


 * Thing is, the thing in italics is a question being raised about what happened. Where should such a thing be posted? There is no mail system so you can't send it to mods or admins privately, so how do you argue your point if it can just be deleted?--Thronedrei (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Josh Hawley, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * How was it nonconstructive? Please elaborate. It was mentioned as "baseless" and I pointed out that it was based on witness evidence.So exactly how was this "nonconstructive"? please define exactly what you mean here. Thronedrei (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Marjorie Taylor Greene. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * The edit I made pointed out that there was no source for the claims for the thing I removed. So shouldn't you as per wikipedia rules actually add a reliable source?Thronedrei (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

American politics DS alert
― Tartan357  Talk 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)