User talk:Myra or someone

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

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 notice boards.
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 John Wayne Gacy, you may be blocked from editing. See WP:POINT. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schneider's plane stopped moving. He didn't. Don't overthink it. A different person, a serial killer, was sentenced by a court to die by lethal injection. That ended up happening. Don't overthink it. Another person, a female newspaper writer, died as a result of circumstances undetermined. Don't overthink it.Myra or someone (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're disrupting Death certificate to make a WP:POINT. Please stop. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LL. Your editing has reached the point where it has become disruptive. Stop it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability

WP:Verifiability is policy. Do read it. Regarding this, this, this, this and this, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not what we personally think. If the literature states "lesbian" for Lorraine Hansberry, so do we. There are plenty of gay men and lesbians who have engaged in sexual activity with and/or been married to the opposite sex...but are still gay men and lesbians. They are not bisexual simply because you view them as such. With regard to what LuckyLouie and Ad Orientem stated above, I'm not sure if you were failing to stick to what the sources state then as well, but if I see that your edits are generally about disregarding what the sources state and going by your personal opinion(s), and neglecting WP:Due weight, I will likely take you to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anyone was or is bisexual "simply because I view them as such." What I said was that two different sections of Lorraine Hansberry's Wikipedia article contradict each other. One says she was a lesbian. The other says she was bisexual. Such a contradiction undermines the integrity of the article.Myra or someone (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As seen with this edit, you were the one who made it so that the section no longer matched the lead. And your reason for doing so? Because "[the] article goes into detail about her marriage to a man, therefore improve word usage for accuracy." This is why I told you above that "There are plenty of gay men and lesbians who have engaged in sexual activity with and/or been married to the opposite sex...but are still gay men and lesbians. They are not bisexual simply because you view them as such."

And now I see you've been disruptive at the Richard Deacon (actor) article again and are currently temporarily blocked. As far as I'm concerned, having looked at your contribution history, you should be indefinitely blocked. You are here to push your own POV, including or especially with regard to people's sexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC) ‎[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Deacon (actor). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I have reverted you and hope that you will make your case on the talkpage properly and gain consensus for your version as you claimed that you did in your edit summary. jps (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will especially have to explain your assertion that two university presses are actually vanity presses! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:editwar, you are now in breach but maybe you are not aware of what edit warring is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if you do not stop you are going to get as block.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

You might want to read up on wp:rs and wp:consensus. Please be aware that continuing to make edits after you have (in effect) found consensus against you is going to earn longer blocks in the long run. Also please take note of wp:rs, you do not get to reject sources that community has found to be reliable. If you do not get your way you must stop editing, we all slip up at times. That is not going to get you much of a sanction. However if it becomes a pattern then it gets perma blocks inn the end. If you are unsure about whether or not an edit will break policy it is best to not make it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]