| Revision as of 04:15, 31 December 2010 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Some articles of interest to you are subject to WP:ARBR&I sanctions: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:26, 31 December 2010 view source KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators34,294 edits 3rr block noticeNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| You seem to be here on a mission, judging from your edit summaries: ''"I can understand that this information is devastating to your little dog and pony show.."'' Please reflect on whether you belong here, if you are not willing to collaborate with others. Thank you, ] (]) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | You seem to be here on a mission, judging from your edit summaries: ''"I can understand that this information is devastating to your little dog and pony show.."'' Please reflect on whether you belong here, if you are not willing to collaborate with others. Thank you, ] (]) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the ] first. <p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ].</p></div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> ''']]''' 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:26, 31 December 2010
Discretionary sanctions in "Race and Intelligence" articles
See Arbcom decision, race and intelligence articles are under discretionary sanctions. This means that you should be in your best behaviour while editing those articles, and that you should be careful to follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
In this edit you are being very harsh with other editors in the page.
You are being reverted because a) people think that you are User:Mikemikev and/or b) you are being very very confrontational and/or c) they already explained in that thread why they think that the proposed edits are not good. The "sock" thing is because people think that you are a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (an alternate account used by Mikemikev to evade the block in his original account). The "troll" thing is because arguments similar to your own arguments have been bandied around for months, and people are starting to think that it's just a tactic to piss off the regular editors of that page.
Please try to be less confrontational. Try to accept that other editors might just not see things your way. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
And wikipedia is not a forum of discussion, that's why your comments are being removed as rants. Try limiting your comments to succint suggestions of changes, supported by sources. That means making specific suggestions of specific changes.
(if you keep commenting in the same line, then you will simply be reported to the arbitration enforcement board. Once there, you will probably be topic banned from race and intelligence topics, for "causing disruption in an article that is under discretionary sanctions" or something similar. Consider this a friendly warning from someone who has seen other editors follow the same line of comments.) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
AN/3RR
You have been reported for violating the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. The report is filed here: User:BT35 reported by User:Professor marginalia - Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Some articles of interest to you are subject to WP:ARBR&I sanctions
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Race and intelligence#Final decision.
You seem to be here on a mission, judging from your edit summaries: "I can understand that this information is devastating to your little dog and pony show.." Please reflect on whether you belong here, if you are not willing to collaborate with others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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.