Jump to content

User talk:PorziaMedici

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, PorziaMedici, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Thank you PorziaMedici (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PorziaMedici, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi PorziaMedici! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


Your submission at Articles for creation: Salisbury Group (March 12)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Eaton

[edit]

If you want to talk about the text in the George Eaton article, you should do it on the Talk page rather than through tit-for-tat reversion. WP:BRD discusses the process that's best practice: make a bold edit (bold meaning without prior discussion), then when it's reverted, start a conversation on the Talk page (here) and make your case. In particular, articles that are biographies of living people have to follow strict standards and the text in the article should not make any claims which aren't clearly backed by the sources cited. Hope that helps, and I'm happy to discuss the appropriate text for the article on the article's Talk page. Ralbegen (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hi PorziaMedici! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Identity politics that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Conservatism sidebar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Salisbury Group

[edit]

Information icon Hello, PorziaMedici. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salisbury Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Non-binary gender. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Non-binary gender, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

[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.

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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you review the following policies and guidelines before you continue editing on gender-related articles:

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Graham Linehan 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.
I note you have previously and recently been warned by two other editors for your editing in gender-related areas. You would do well to read the links they posted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing on gender related topics after previous warnings, also edit-warring against consensus at Graham Linehan. 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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I engaged with others in the discussion page, and followed Wikipedia's consensus guidelines. Accusing Graham Linehan of being against trans people is not only highly contentious, but also potentially dangerous.
As an administrator, you have a responsibility to make sure that Wikipedia articles are written from neutral point of view. You have not lived up to your responsibility in respect to Linehan's article. It is a character assassination, and not a reasoned encyclopaedic article. PorziaMedici (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PorziaMedici (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

As far as I am aware, I followed the consensus guidelines. The gender debate is a highly charged issue at the moment, and I am concerned that Graham Linehan's page has been highjacked by users with ulterior motives. Linehan is a well-known television comedy writer, and only in recent times has been critical of the trans movement. The content on his current Wiki page is clearly influenced far more by recent events concerning his gender critical views, and this has distorted the overview quality of the page. It reads more like a character assassination than a encyclopaedia article. There is no reliable evidence that suggests that Linehan hates or is against trans people. I therefore think it is injudicious and potentially dangerous to label him as 'anti-trans'. The majority viewpoint on the talk page is that we should avoid the 'anti-trans' label for Linehan on account of its contentiousness. And although the Wikipedia guidelines do not necessarily consider consensus to be down entirely to a majority viewpoint, their arguments here are far more charitable and nuanced than the users who appear to have taken over the page.

Furthermore, I have been called up on my recent edits on other gender-related pages. Note that these edits were all in good faith, and have been recognised as such. I want to add some nuance to this conceptually confused debate, and I am relatively qualified to do so. I am concerned that the gender-related pages, although necessarily in need of additional moderation, have been too closely guarded by unqualified users who allow for overly-simplistic and misleading content. For instance, on the non-binary gender page I referenced an article in support of the following statement: 'The categorical distinction between binary and non-binary itself establishes a binary gender system between people who identify as 'binary' and people who identity as 'non-binary'. The referenced article was held to be a subjective opinion piece. This is quite frankly absurd, for it is a matter of deduction; the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion.

Anyway, for the above reasons, I believe that I should not be banned. In the future, I shall make greater use of the talk page. And please be aware that I am still familiarising myself with the Wikipedia guidelines. And I am going to avoid the gender pages for the time being. I do hope that some better moderation can be in place, however.

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, when edit warring is not acceptable in most cases. Every edit warrior thinks that they are correct. There does not seem to be agreement that the consensus says what you claim it says, but even if you were correct, there are proper channels to pursue instead of edit warring. Pieces that are a matter of deduction would be original research. Staying away from gender related topics is probably a good idea, but I am not convinced that you will refrain from edit warring elsewhere, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.