User talk:Lm6886

Lm6886, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lm6886! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! --Devokewater (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Graham Linehan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Graham Linehan came out as non binary on Twitter on June 12th. I updated Wikipedia to reflect these changes. Graham no longer goes by he/him pronouns, rather they/them pronouns instead. I believe it is right to accurately portray this on Wikipedia Lm6886 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Given his antipathy towards the LGBT community, no one believes him. Regardless, it is not an excuse to edit war. My notice was a courtesy, so you're aware of our rules & don't accidentally get in trouble. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

March 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Philosophy Tube. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. — Bilorv (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Philosophy Tube, you may be blocked from editing. Equivamp - talk 21:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

By continuing on your current trajectory, you will be blocked from editing, with no other effect. There is precisely a 0% chance that making a change again and again without discussion will see that change stick. Consider that your desired version of the page can be completely correct, and yet wasting your own time to have no effect other than being blocked is not worthwhile. — Bilorv (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Philosophy Tube. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, Please don't refer to this as vandalism. It isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Philosophy Tube) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate transgender people get a tough time in the world, but the editors you are fighting with are, my opinion, not at all transphobic and to call them as such is a personal attack. You aren't going to get anywhere unless you discuss your changes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's worth saying, I think, that the lengthy discussion which led to inclusion of the name included trans people, not all of whom opposed inclusion. Even the subject of the article herself said via email, "I do see the logic of keeping the old name there, that is fair enough" (though she initially expressed a preference for exclusion, which we took into account). It is not my aim to argue that including the name is good or bad, but that one person overriding the majority view of the community is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, not to mention, I, a trans person, started that RFC… ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

AdiAir moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, AdiAir, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:AdiAir

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Draft:AdiAir, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)