User talk:92.7.77.12

LGBT legislators

Whatever you may think about the validity or invalidity of Category:LGBT legislators in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia has very clear rules and processes — and one of those rules is that you are not entitled, under any circumstances, to simply vacate an existing category arbitrarily. If you don't like it, you can initiate a discussion at WP:CFD about deleting or renaming it, but you are not permitted to simply empty it out yourself without establishing a consensus for its removal or renaming.

Secondly, if members of British parliaments aren't called "legislators", then explain Category:Legislators in the United Kingdom (which has existed for 15 years without anybody ever taking issue with it).

I've initiated a CFR discussion about potentially renaming the category. But you are not permitted to remove the category from any article or subcategory yourself independently of that discussion arriving at a consensus one way or the other, and trying that stunt again will not be tolerated. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You created the original category a month ago without really any need to as no one else seems to have wanted or needed to create it. In regard to the Welsh LGBT politicians, what I would suggest is you replace the category you keep adding and create one called LGBT members of the Senedd as that would be the correct category and one that I would happily support. 92.7.77.12 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it was created "correctly" or "incorrectly" — you are still STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from emptying out a category in advance of a consensus to delete or rename it, because that is our non-negotiable rule about how the category process works. If anybody could just arbitrarily empty out any category they wanted without discussing it first, then every category on Wikipedia would be instantly emptied just because somebody didn't like it. So whether you like the category or not, you MUST discuss it rather than emptying it out arbitrarily, and that is not up for debate or discussion or disagreement at all. You follow the rules, or you buzz off, because following the rules is how this place works.

Even if there were a separate category created for LGBT members of the Senedd, further, that doesn't actually solve the problem — there still has to be an "LGBT [legislators or a synonym for that] from the United Kingdom" container to parent all of the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Senedd and MEPs categories, so that there's one UK category in Category:LGBT legislators, not four. So even if you don't like "legislators", then there still has to be an alternative to "legislators" created between UK/Scotland/Senedd/MEPs and Category:LGBT legislators, and just creating a subcategory for the Senedd alone does not solve the issue, because it does not answer the relationship of the group with the Category:LGBT legislators parent category.

So, one more time: you may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 21 to suggest a new name for the category that resolves your dislike of the term "legislator" while still serving the same function of ensuring that there's one UK-wide container category between Category:LGBT legislators and the various categories for the different UK legislative bodies. But you are never permitted to just empty out any category yourself without listing it for a CFD/CFR discussion first, because you are obligated to follow our established processes rather than making up your own rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Your recent editing history at Hannah Blythyn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sjö (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2021

Hello, I'm Ʃx. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jennette Bradley, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ʃx (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2021

UK General Election edits

Hey, I'm Plutonical! I noticed you removed some previous positions of a government member on this page. Now, I know you may not agree with the inclusion of those pieces, but if they're properly sourced, we have to include them. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked previous articles, relating to MPs who have retired, and none were previously included so I removed for constituency purposes. 92.7.77.12 (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.