User talk:Dyldyl9
|
Notice
[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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah because going against the biased hive mind is pseudoscience. Got it Dyldyl9 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
[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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean you have a right to put “discretionary sanctions” on them, especially when they just put facts that you don’t agree witn Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert - post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
[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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
[edit]Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Libs of TikTok, you may be blocked from editing. Please note that Libs of TikTok is subject to discretionary sanctions, and that the content you are adding is not in the source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Libs of TikTok 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. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes the same person who has blatant leftist talking points on their profile is claiming I’m pushing a narrative. That’s rich Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]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:Dyldyl9 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Dyldyl9. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Wow nice job strawmanning me. Pretty pathetic to have to do that to get anyone who disagrees with you banned. No wonder people clown on Wikipedia for its biased editors Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)