→arbcom: re |
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
@[[User:EvergreenFir]] There are no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in [[Mansplaining]] supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. [[User:EChastain|EChastain]] ([[User talk:EChastain#top|talk]]) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) |
@[[User:EvergreenFir]] There are no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in [[Mansplaining]] supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. [[User:EChastain|EChastain]] ([[User talk:EChastain#top|talk]]) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:There are. Read [[WP:LEAD]]. Also see [[Talk:Mansplaining#Meme]]. Attempting dispute resolution. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:49, 26 October 2014
Welcome
|
arbcom
You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:EvergreenFir There are no reliable sources in Mansplaining supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. EChastain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are. Read WP:LEAD. Also see Talk:Mansplaining#Meme. Attempting dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)