User talk:Adult Virgin

June 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Donald Triplett, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. We can't draw our own, unsourced conclusions or inferences from an absence of evidence. Neither of the sources used says anything about the subject as a husband or father. Haploidavey (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elliot Rodger#RFC: Referring to Elliot Rodger as the "Founding Father of the incel ideology" in the infobox

Hi, In your comment at Special:Diff/1236383957 at Talk:Elliot Rodger#RFC: Referring to Elliot Rodger as the "Founding Father of the incel ideology" in the infobox , you implied that other editors are "downright stupid" and accused them of "tampered with" the article. You should strike your comments immediately. This is a warning. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adult_Virgin reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: ). Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please use sentences, paragraphs, punctuation and follow canonical list formats on talk pages

This is inadequate in several ways:

Yes, or something similar

he's definitely definitely not JUST known for being the Perpetrator of the Isla Vista Killings, that's downright stupid

he was referred to as the author of the incel ideology in the infobox for months before someone tampered with it

I can provide several reliable sources that refer to him in a similar way if I must

lets leave it how it was Adult Virgin (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• It has a blank line before the prior item in the list.
• The prior item in the list is a * (bullet) not a : (indent).
• The "yes" is not bolded per the norm. This is up to you but you really should follow the way we do things.
• It is not sentences. There is no capitalization and no periods.
• It is not paragraphs and contains unnecessary newlines.

It should look more like this:

• Yes, or something similar. He's definitely definitely not JUST known for being the Perpetrator of the Isla Vista Killings, that's downright stupid. He was referred to as the author of the incel ideology in the infobox for months before someone tampered with it. I can provide several reliable sources that refer to him in a similar way if I must. Lets leave it how it was. Adult Virgin (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note I have used an extra indentation on those example for clarity on the talk page here, and that the first ":" should be omitted on the actual talk page. Please review WP:THREAD and MOS:LISTGAP for general information on talk page formatting. I suggest you use the [ reply ] button rather than editing the talk page directly. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)