User talk:VV101RAM

December 2017
Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Danica Roem, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Danica Roem identifies as female. This is not a matter of bias, this is a fact. Saying otherwise is incorrect. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Thank you'' 331dot (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Simply because Danica Roem identifies as a female does not mean Danica Roem is female. This isn’t just about policies here on Wikipedia, this is about the whole issue of transgenderism and other such nonsense. I do not believe Wikipedia or a contributor such as yourself should be honouring a mental disorder and encouraging such lunacy.
 * Again, I do not wish to debate your beliefs. However, if your beliefs prevent you from complying with Wikipedia policy, you may wish to spend time elsewhere.  There are many others similar projects(or you could start one) that are likely more compatible with your beliefs.  If you wish to battle transgenderism and human rights, this isn't the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing Wikipedia’s policies on gender identity I can only admit that the changes I made to the ‘Danica Roem’ page were in direct violation of the gender pronouns and identity policy. However, I have noticed that instead of discussing the issue of transgenderism in general, you have simply referred me to a page about Wikipedia’s policy. I see this as a weak attempt to hide your own opinions and beliefs on the subject and, as such, I do not think you are very good at what you do here on Wikipedia.
 * Your opinion of my Wikipedia skills is noted. Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss transgenderism in general.  This is an encyclopedia, which we are all supposed to be here working on.  As I indicated, you are free to attempt to work to change Wikipedia policy in this area, though frankly I don't think you would be successful.  That's pretty much the only avenue open to you if you disagree with the policy on how transgendered people are identified here. If you wish to wage a larger social battle against transgenderism, this is the wrong place to start. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. You really are arguing here. What difference does it make what I, 331dot, or you think. The policy stands, and we are all to abide by it. You have a problem with us referring you to a policy page. We are not here to debate you. Further use of Wikipedia as a forum on which to espouse your beliefs may result in you being blocked from editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

--ChiveFungi (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the following wikipedia policy on gender pronouns
MOS:GENDERID will hopefully clarify things for you. Brustopher (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Your recent editing history at Danica Roem 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 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 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. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

page protected as you wished, however
Please read the links above. Please discuss changes on article talk. You are edit warring. If you resume,you may be blocked from editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)