Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
== Personal attacks == |
== Personal attacks == |
||
If you continue making personal attacks on Flyer at [[Biology and sexual orientation]] and elsewhere, I will see that you are banned from Wikipedia. I have enough diffs from you now to do it. So stop. |
If you continue making personal attacks on Flyer at [[Talk:Biology and sexual orientation]] and elsewhere, I will see that you are banned from Wikipedia. I have enough diffs from you now to do it. So stop. |
||
[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|stop attacking]] other editors. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC) |
[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|stop attacking]] other editors. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:42, 20 February 2016
August 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Promiscuity has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Promiscuity was changed by Rafe87 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.870517 on 2015-08-01T13:33:45+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Rafe87, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
August 2015
Your recent editing history at Stonewall (2015 film) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. I appreciate the warning.Rafe87 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- You should take a look at my note on the article talk page before editing the Stonewall (2015 film) article again. Abecedare (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Gay sexual practices— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Arabism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Antonin Scalia
Hello, I'm Kurousagi. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Antonin Scalia— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -Kuro 03:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop replacing a term with the offensive version of the same word. Homosexual sodomy is perfectly fine, and I see no need to replace it with 'Gay sex'. -iKuro 03:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- LOL, you must be insane to think that "gay sex" is offensive and "homosexual sodomy" is not. Please, check your bias, User:Kurousagi. Rafe87 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, 'homosexual sodomy' is perfectly fine on that article; there is no need to change it to 'gay sex'. -Kuro 03:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Will see when I call mediation. Would also love to see you, User:Kurousagi, explain how "gay sex" is offensive. Rafe87 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you not see what I have written there right above your most recent comment? 'homosexual sodomy' already fits perfectly well-- there is no need AT ALL to replace it with 'gay sex'. -Kuro 03:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Will see when I call mediation. Would also love to see you, User:Kurousagi, explain how "gay sex" is offensive. Rafe87 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, 'homosexual sodomy' is perfectly fine on that article; there is no need to change it to 'gay sex'. -Kuro 03:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- LOL, you must be insane to think that "gay sex" is offensive and "homosexual sodomy" is not. Please, check your bias, User:Kurousagi. Rafe87 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Your recent editing history at Antonin Scalia 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
Your recent editing history at Biology and sexual orientation 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Reported at AN/E
You have been reported for engaging in edit wars with multiple other editors here [1]. CFCF 💌 📧 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katietalk 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks
If you continue making personal attacks on Flyer at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation and elsewhere, I will see that you are banned from Wikipedia. I have enough diffs from you now to do it. So stop.
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)