Robby.is.on (talk | contribs) Reverted 1 edit by Pidke (talk): Revert LTA sock. |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice: new section |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
</table> |
</table> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1056563210 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1056563210 --> |
||
== Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice == |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' |
|||
You have shown interest in '''gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them.''' Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx|Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
|||
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 11:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:51, 3 November 2022
I have questions I can't get answers to. I have a watch given to me by my great grandma. Probably fake. How do I remove things to find out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.85.75.181 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Some good copyedits there. I enjoyed your trims of Corbyn and Smith. Keep up the good work. John (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC) |
Very kind. Some people don't write well! Ironman1104 (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
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#United Kingdom 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. · | (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)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)