User talk:Peoplelikeyou1234567
Welcome![edit]
Hi Peoplelikeyou1234567! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for messaging! I'll make sure to check all this out. Thanks for reaching out :) Peoplelikeyou1234567 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
February 2024[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Where is that vandalism? Can you give a WP:diff? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Vanjagenije, [1]; [2]; [3] may not all be straight vandalism, but are test edits or original research. Taken together, they're disruptive. Perhaps a level one notice would have been more appropriate, but most of their contributions have been reverted for various reasons. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not a single one of those edits constitutes vandalism. You should read carefully WP:VANDALISM and especially WP:NOTVANDALISM to learn what vandalism is and what is not. Accusing new editors for vandalism without evidence is a form of WP:BITING. You should refrain from such behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Very well. Peoplelikeyou1234567, let me echo the welcome you received above, and explain why a number of your edits were reverted. This appeared to me to be either a test or vandalism [4]--perhaps you can explain; this was unsourced [5] and requires WP:RELIABLE to support it; this was an unexplained, unsourced and controversial content change [6]; this was unsourced and properly considered unnecessary by another editor [7]; this also appeared to be a good faith/test edit [8]; this was correctly reverted per MOS:OL [9]; and this was presumably a test edit [10]. Please do read more about our guidelines, and contribute here. Feel free to ask questions, too. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't responded to the above. Please explain the rationale for this edit [11]. I'm wondering if these aren't intended to be disruptive after all. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize if you find this edit disruptive. My goal was to add more information to this page. Peoplelikeyou1234567 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't responded to the above. Please explain the rationale for this edit [11]. I'm wondering if these aren't intended to be disruptive after all. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Very well. Peoplelikeyou1234567, let me echo the welcome you received above, and explain why a number of your edits were reverted. This appeared to me to be either a test or vandalism [4]--perhaps you can explain; this was unsourced [5] and requires WP:RELIABLE to support it; this was an unexplained, unsourced and controversial content change [6]; this was unsourced and properly considered unnecessary by another editor [7]; this also appeared to be a good faith/test edit [8]; this was correctly reverted per MOS:OL [9]; and this was presumably a test edit [10]. Please do read more about our guidelines, and contribute here. Feel free to ask questions, too. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not a single one of those edits constitutes vandalism. You should read carefully WP:VANDALISM and especially WP:NOTVANDALISM to learn what vandalism is and what is not. Accusing new editors for vandalism without evidence is a form of WP:BITING. You should refrain from such behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Vanjagenije, [1]; [2]; [3] may not all be straight vandalism, but are test edits or original research. Taken together, they're disruptive. Perhaps a level one notice would have been more appropriate, but most of their contributions have been reverted for various reasons. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at George Fox, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B5B5:46AC:4F0D:7F08 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Pangram, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. No need to link the names of countries, see MOS:OVERLINK. Belbury (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
May 2024[edit]
Hello, I'm Raladic. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Non-binary gender, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refer to MOS:GENDERID. Raladic (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.