User talk:Benc0lins
October 2020
[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Caster Semenya. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You do not get to speculate about people's sexual organs. You do not get to describe them with outdated and derogatory terms. This applies both to the article and to its talk page. This has to stop now. This is a living person we are talking about. Have a modicum of decency. DanielRigal (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Caster Semenya. I see that you:
- Reinserted your abusive edit to Caster Semenya
- Marked the edit as minor, which it wasn't, in a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny.
- Attempted to defend your behaviour by misrepresenting the content of the sources on my user talk page. (Where I have replied detailing the very obvious falsehood of your claim.)
As there is a clear pattern of intentional dishonesty here, I am not going to mince words. You are clearly here to abuse Wikipedia to push a personal grudge with no respect for our project to build an encyclopaedia. This has to stop and stop now. DanielRigal (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
??? My edit is a medically factual edit. There is attempt to be abusive to anyone. Can I please ask you to read Wikipedia’s article entitled “Threats and intimidation” with regards to your most recent message to me.
My guess is that you have some sort of political agenda, as I have referenced my sources and shown that they are not “poorly referenced” as you claim. Please read the CAS findings PDF I have linked you to. Please also read the medical citation I referenced regarding the word “hermaphrodite”.
Please note that the term 46 XY Hermaphrodite is a specific subset of hermaphroditism, whereas the vagueness of the term “intersex” in this context leads to an ambiguity that disguises the inaccuracy of claiming the athlete is “Cis-gender”. There is no intention of abusiveness in any way.
If you have an issue with any of the facts that I have laid out, then please be specific. Benc0lins (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I already explained in the reply on my talk page, I am not an idiot. I do not wish to play time consuming games with you. You like to throw the abusive term "hermaphrodite" around without justification. You dishonestly suggested that your use of this word was supported by a source (CAS) that didn't even use the word! You treated us like fools but you got caught because we are not fools. We do actually check that references support the material they purport to. Your behaviour is unacceptable. This has already been explained. You already know this. You have been warned. You remain on final warning. I do not propose to argue further. Your edit has already been removed by two editors other than myself, one of them an Administrator. There is a clear consensus against it.
- Oh, and I appreciate that this is a minor thing, but can you please also stop with the strange capitalisation and hyphenation of the word cisgender? I'm not sure why you are doing that but it is incorrect.
- If you want to stay on Wikipedia then please drop this ridiculous grudge and move on to editing some other article in a more constructive way. If you can't do that then clearly Wikipedia is not going to work out for you. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Caster Semenya 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. DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
ANI notification
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what you are doing wrong. Regardless of whether you believe your edits to be factually accurate or not, they have been challenged and reverted. It is now your responsibility to persuade everyone that what you wish to add or change is accurate, reliably sourced, and improves the article.
Instead you have repeatedly re-inserted your edits, and then offered to discuss them. You have this the wrong way around. Discuss first. This is what makes your actions edit warring and likely to end in you being blocked. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notices
[edit]
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
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.
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)