User talk:SouthernCaliforniaExploration
Welcome!
[edit]Hi SouthernCaliforniaExploration! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing!
May 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Beccaynr. Your recent edit(s) to the page Abortion in the United States appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. Please inform me what information was incorrect. All of the information I have listed on "Abortion in the United States" is factual, and I have updated my edits with citations. If there was something you believe to be incorrect, please let me know and I can inspect it. Thank you. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- You now appear to be edit-warring in the obviously inaccurate statement that "The bill bans all forms of elective abortion beginning at conception" which is contradicted by the sources and the text you also added. This law is also an attempt, because not only is abortion still constitutionally-protected in the United States, these attempts are fairly routine and are immediately met with legal challenges, as has happened here. I encourage you to revert your inaccurate additions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this is inaccurate. The right to an abortion is not stated anywhere in the constitution. It is not a constitutional right, it is only permitted to be performed in the United States due to the ratification of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Also, all of the information that I have added to the article is not only factual, it is also backed up with sourced, cited evidence. For example, my edit stating that "The bill bans all forms of elective abortion beginning at conception" is factual, as one of my linked sources stated. According to an MSM source I have linked, "The only exceptions in the Oklahoma law are to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement." The above scenarios are certainly not examples of elective abortions, therefore implying that elective abortions are banned, since the only abortions that continue to be permitted are non-elective abortions. I have added additional citations and sources to the article, verified all of my information, and would appreciate it if my factual, cited, and sourced edits were left undisturbed. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I said "constitutionally-protected" because that is what Roe and Casey state - the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy is part of a fundamental right of privacy, and I encourage you to read the Supreme Court decisions for further information. I am glad that an administrator has adjusted the article to better align with the sources, although the inaccurate information you initially added appears to have created some additional issues with another part of the article. It further appears to be original research to suggest that someone who chooses abortion after choosing to report rape or incest is engaging in a 'non-elective' abortion. I think it is important to be precise with the language used and that it is also very important to avoid suggesting that abortion is more restricted than it is reported to be. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is correct, an abortion in the case of Rape or Incest can be considered by some (not all) to be an elective abortion, which is why I included both terms as exceptions to the bill later in my edits. None of my edits indicate that House Bill 4327 is more restrictive towards abortion than it legally is. If confusion arises, editors are always welcome to view the links, sources, and citations to credible news agencies that I have included at the end of my edits. I am also pleased that an administrator has viewed the article and made changes; hopefully it will assist in ceasing the wrongful termination of factual information contributed by myself as well as others. I fail to see exactly where inaccurate information has been contributed to the article by myself; I would appreciate it if you could point it out. I would also like to know which other part of the article the information I have contributed has caused problems in; the article appears to be functioning properly at this time. Thank you. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- You reverted the changes made by the administrator, which is why I then added the edit-warring warning. And we do not add inaccurate information and expect our readers to find the correct information in the sources, so I continue to encourage you to fix the error you have repeatedly added to the article. I have explained what is inaccurate, and you can see the change made by Wtmitchell here: [1], which removes your original research and instead directly reflects the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reverting changes made by an administrator is not a disallowed function of Wikipedia Editing. Administrators are human and can, at times, publish incorrect information. This is the reason why there is a large community of Wikipedia Editors that actively monitor and edit pages to fit a factual narrative. If you believe that there is still a problem with the information I have inserted into the page, please point it out. At this time, I cannot find any incorrect, inaccurate, or invalid information that I have associated with the page. If you can view such information and would like me to inspect it, please quote the exact, inaccurate information you have observed. Thank you. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have already told you the problems with your original research of "The bill bans all forms of elective abortion beginning at conception" and pointed to the diff of the changes made by Wtmitchell as an example of an accurate way to present the information based on the sources. I continue to encourage you to respect the emerging consensus about how to present information accurately and to remove your original and unsourced interpretation from the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure what version of the page you are reading, but the current iteration no longer states the above. The quote you have listed above was the result of editorial conflict, in which another editor and myself began inspecting and revising the article at the same time, resulting in information from different sentences somehow being inserted into the same phrase. That has been fixed for quite some time, and the current phrase no longer states "all forms." I can assure that there was no "original research" performed or implemented here; all edits made by myself on this page have been either directly quoted, paraphrased, or otherwise obtained from credible news agencies, all of which have been linked, sourced, and cited at the end of each edit. Have you observed any other issues related to the page that warrant my attention? SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The current version of the article [2], includes the inaccurate information you have repeatedly added, "The bill bans elective abortion beginning at conception." Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that the words "all forms" were removed from this sentence on account of being misleading. Elective Abortion is defined as being "abortion completed without medical need," according to the Wiktionary. Rape and Incest can often lead to medically-required abortions and contraceptive care, which is why both terms are not typically referred to as being elective abortions. Rape is the act of forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse, which can often lead to medical trauma, both physically and mentally, if left untreated. STD's, which often are the result of unprotected, forced sexual intercourse, can develop into life-threatening illnesses. As such, immediate treatment of all Sexually-Transmitted Diseases is recommended. Medicinal and Surgical Operations that are conducted to assist in the dissipation or removal of STD's often involve terminating active pregnancies in order to maintain the Health and Safety of the mother, as well as to ensure that the developing fetus is not born with life-threatening or crippling mental or physical afflictions. Incest is often the result of sexual intercourse involving 2 blood-related minors or 1 blood-related minor and 1 blood-related adult. In rarer cases, incest can occur consensually between two blood-related adults, however most cases of incest involve either Sexual Intercourse with a Minor or Sexual Intercourse between 2 blood-related adults, whether consensual or otherwise. Incest Sexual Intercourse involving female minors typically requires immediate medical attention and contraceptive medication to be administered in order to stop the development of an embryo. If the pregnancy has developed for longer periods of time, medical abortions are typically administered to remove the growing fetus from the female minor. Therefore, abortions in cases of both Rape and Incest can be, and often are, considered medical abortions, and are consequently permitted, categorized, and treated as such. It is for these reasons that I have decided not to refer to abortions conducted under the premise of Rape and Incest as elective abortions, as they are often medically-required interventions that are performed to ensure the Health and Safety of the afflicted person(s). This is also why I have included separate sentences in my edits describing the degrees to which medical abortions are permitted, as well as sourced citations in case readers wish to perform any external investigation. What you have quoted and described above is an issue that has already been resolved and explained, and there is no further discussion involving it required. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your additional explanation, it does further clarify that your disputed addition is contrary to the original research policy, and your original and unsourced intepretation should be removed. Please review the edit made by Wtmitchell for an example of how to comply with Wikipedia policy and use reliable sources to add content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The original interpretation was removed. I explained that the term "all forms" was mistakenly added to the sentence as a result of editorial conflict. I source all of my edits thoroughly before adding them, and can assure all Wikipedia users and editors that there is an absolute lack of "original research" being conducted on my behalf. Any misunderstanding revolving around this matter was nothing more than the result several typos and editorial miscommunication. If you or any other Wikipedia editors come across an edit made by myself that you believe is not accurate or properly sourced, then by all means please delete it and edit the page accordingly. There is no reason for me to continue engaging in this nonsensical debate of comically-long proportion regarding a simple issue that was resolved almost-instantly. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I continue to encourage you to edit the inaccurate statement "The bill bans elective abortion beginning at conception" because I am not going to engage in edit-warring. I am trying to discuss this with you so we can work within Wikipedia policies to arrive at an agreement. What I do not want to have happen is for me to continue changing the article to reflect the sources and for you to continue adding your own interpretation of medical science, and then claiming what you have repeatedly added is a result of typos and editorial miscommunication. Please review the edit by Wtmitchell as an example of how this dispute can be resolved. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The information that I have used to draft and submit the above, quoted edit is factual. There is no room for debate on this matter. If you are capable of navigating through citations and sources, you will be quick to realize that my edit, "The bill bans elective abortion beginning at conception," is entirely accurate and represented by this sourced, cited article from the San Francisco Examiner: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/national/bill-making-abortion-illegal-starting-at-conception-signed-by-oklahoma-governor/article_b7f2d6ac-a91d-5bc4-9504-56aa8e5dc969.html#1. You are welcome to read the title of the article, as well as its 18 paragraphs, then inform me of what I have done wrong. I will not alter, rephrase, or remove factual, sourced information from Wikipedia Pages, nor will I tolerate having my editorial work, a valued asset for Wikipedia, be the subject of mockery, defamation, and ridicule by any individual. I have spent an enormous amount of time, energy, and resources engaging in this debacle, and my time entertaining it has come to an end. Good Day. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The phrase "elective" does not appear in that source. This addition appears to be your own interpretation and does not appear to be an appropriate addition to the article, including because it is confusing and deviates from the references. I am sorry that you are not willing to discuss this further, and as a final caution, please note that repeatedly referring to another editor's comments as 'defamation' may be interpreted as a legal threat, which is against Wikipedia policy and may result in an indefinite block - the use of less-charged wording can help avoid a misunderstanding. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The information that I have used to draft and submit the above, quoted edit is factual. There is no room for debate on this matter. If you are capable of navigating through citations and sources, you will be quick to realize that my edit, "The bill bans elective abortion beginning at conception," is entirely accurate and represented by this sourced, cited article from the San Francisco Examiner: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/national/bill-making-abortion-illegal-starting-at-conception-signed-by-oklahoma-governor/article_b7f2d6ac-a91d-5bc4-9504-56aa8e5dc969.html#1. You are welcome to read the title of the article, as well as its 18 paragraphs, then inform me of what I have done wrong. I will not alter, rephrase, or remove factual, sourced information from Wikipedia Pages, nor will I tolerate having my editorial work, a valued asset for Wikipedia, be the subject of mockery, defamation, and ridicule by any individual. I have spent an enormous amount of time, energy, and resources engaging in this debacle, and my time entertaining it has come to an end. Good Day. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I continue to encourage you to edit the inaccurate statement "The bill bans elective abortion beginning at conception" because I am not going to engage in edit-warring. I am trying to discuss this with you so we can work within Wikipedia policies to arrive at an agreement. What I do not want to have happen is for me to continue changing the article to reflect the sources and for you to continue adding your own interpretation of medical science, and then claiming what you have repeatedly added is a result of typos and editorial miscommunication. Please review the edit by Wtmitchell as an example of how this dispute can be resolved. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The original interpretation was removed. I explained that the term "all forms" was mistakenly added to the sentence as a result of editorial conflict. I source all of my edits thoroughly before adding them, and can assure all Wikipedia users and editors that there is an absolute lack of "original research" being conducted on my behalf. Any misunderstanding revolving around this matter was nothing more than the result several typos and editorial miscommunication. If you or any other Wikipedia editors come across an edit made by myself that you believe is not accurate or properly sourced, then by all means please delete it and edit the page accordingly. There is no reason for me to continue engaging in this nonsensical debate of comically-long proportion regarding a simple issue that was resolved almost-instantly. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your additional explanation, it does further clarify that your disputed addition is contrary to the original research policy, and your original and unsourced intepretation should be removed. Please review the edit made by Wtmitchell for an example of how to comply with Wikipedia policy and use reliable sources to add content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that the words "all forms" were removed from this sentence on account of being misleading. Elective Abortion is defined as being "abortion completed without medical need," according to the Wiktionary. Rape and Incest can often lead to medically-required abortions and contraceptive care, which is why both terms are not typically referred to as being elective abortions. Rape is the act of forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse, which can often lead to medical trauma, both physically and mentally, if left untreated. STD's, which often are the result of unprotected, forced sexual intercourse, can develop into life-threatening illnesses. As such, immediate treatment of all Sexually-Transmitted Diseases is recommended. Medicinal and Surgical Operations that are conducted to assist in the dissipation or removal of STD's often involve terminating active pregnancies in order to maintain the Health and Safety of the mother, as well as to ensure that the developing fetus is not born with life-threatening or crippling mental or physical afflictions. Incest is often the result of sexual intercourse involving 2 blood-related minors or 1 blood-related minor and 1 blood-related adult. In rarer cases, incest can occur consensually between two blood-related adults, however most cases of incest involve either Sexual Intercourse with a Minor or Sexual Intercourse between 2 blood-related adults, whether consensual or otherwise. Incest Sexual Intercourse involving female minors typically requires immediate medical attention and contraceptive medication to be administered in order to stop the development of an embryo. If the pregnancy has developed for longer periods of time, medical abortions are typically administered to remove the growing fetus from the female minor. Therefore, abortions in cases of both Rape and Incest can be, and often are, considered medical abortions, and are consequently permitted, categorized, and treated as such. It is for these reasons that I have decided not to refer to abortions conducted under the premise of Rape and Incest as elective abortions, as they are often medically-required interventions that are performed to ensure the Health and Safety of the afflicted person(s). This is also why I have included separate sentences in my edits describing the degrees to which medical abortions are permitted, as well as sourced citations in case readers wish to perform any external investigation. What you have quoted and described above is an issue that has already been resolved and explained, and there is no further discussion involving it required. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The current version of the article [2], includes the inaccurate information you have repeatedly added, "The bill bans elective abortion beginning at conception." Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure what version of the page you are reading, but the current iteration no longer states the above. The quote you have listed above was the result of editorial conflict, in which another editor and myself began inspecting and revising the article at the same time, resulting in information from different sentences somehow being inserted into the same phrase. That has been fixed for quite some time, and the current phrase no longer states "all forms." I can assure that there was no "original research" performed or implemented here; all edits made by myself on this page have been either directly quoted, paraphrased, or otherwise obtained from credible news agencies, all of which have been linked, sourced, and cited at the end of each edit. Have you observed any other issues related to the page that warrant my attention? SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have already told you the problems with your original research of "The bill bans all forms of elective abortion beginning at conception" and pointed to the diff of the changes made by Wtmitchell as an example of an accurate way to present the information based on the sources. I continue to encourage you to respect the emerging consensus about how to present information accurately and to remove your original and unsourced interpretation from the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reverting changes made by an administrator is not a disallowed function of Wikipedia Editing. Administrators are human and can, at times, publish incorrect information. This is the reason why there is a large community of Wikipedia Editors that actively monitor and edit pages to fit a factual narrative. If you believe that there is still a problem with the information I have inserted into the page, please point it out. At this time, I cannot find any incorrect, inaccurate, or invalid information that I have associated with the page. If you can view such information and would like me to inspect it, please quote the exact, inaccurate information you have observed. Thank you. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- You reverted the changes made by the administrator, which is why I then added the edit-warring warning. And we do not add inaccurate information and expect our readers to find the correct information in the sources, so I continue to encourage you to fix the error you have repeatedly added to the article. I have explained what is inaccurate, and you can see the change made by Wtmitchell here: [1], which removes your original research and instead directly reflects the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is correct, an abortion in the case of Rape or Incest can be considered by some (not all) to be an elective abortion, which is why I included both terms as exceptions to the bill later in my edits. None of my edits indicate that House Bill 4327 is more restrictive towards abortion than it legally is. If confusion arises, editors are always welcome to view the links, sources, and citations to credible news agencies that I have included at the end of my edits. I am also pleased that an administrator has viewed the article and made changes; hopefully it will assist in ceasing the wrongful termination of factual information contributed by myself as well as others. I fail to see exactly where inaccurate information has been contributed to the article by myself; I would appreciate it if you could point it out. I would also like to know which other part of the article the information I have contributed has caused problems in; the article appears to be functioning properly at this time. Thank you. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I said "constitutionally-protected" because that is what Roe and Casey state - the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy is part of a fundamental right of privacy, and I encourage you to read the Supreme Court decisions for further information. I am glad that an administrator has adjusted the article to better align with the sources, although the inaccurate information you initially added appears to have created some additional issues with another part of the article. It further appears to be original research to suggest that someone who chooses abortion after choosing to report rape or incest is engaging in a 'non-elective' abortion. I think it is important to be precise with the language used and that it is also very important to avoid suggesting that abortion is more restricted than it is reported to be. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this is inaccurate. The right to an abortion is not stated anywhere in the constitution. It is not a constitutional right, it is only permitted to be performed in the United States due to the ratification of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Also, all of the information that I have added to the article is not only factual, it is also backed up with sourced, cited evidence. For example, my edit stating that "The bill bans all forms of elective abortion beginning at conception" is factual, as one of my linked sources stated. According to an MSM source I have linked, "The only exceptions in the Oklahoma law are to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement." The above scenarios are certainly not examples of elective abortions, therefore implying that elective abortions are banned, since the only abortions that continue to be permitted are non-elective abortions. I have added additional citations and sources to the article, verified all of my information, and would appreciate it if my factual, cited, and sourced edits were left undisturbed. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- You now appear to be edit-warring in the obviously inaccurate statement that "The bill bans all forms of elective abortion beginning at conception" which is contradicted by the sources and the text you also added. This law is also an attempt, because not only is abortion still constitutionally-protected in the United States, these attempts are fairly routine and are immediately met with legal challenges, as has happened here. I encourage you to revert your inaccurate additions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Abortion in the United States. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Abortion in the United States 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. Beccaynr (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi SouthernCaliforniaExploration! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Abortion in the United States 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. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Salvador Ronaldo Ramos (American Mass Shooter) (May 27)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salvador Ronaldo Ramos (American Mass Shooter) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Salvador Ronaldo Ramos (American Mass Shooter), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, SouthernCaliforniaExploration!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Notices
[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.
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 abortion. 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.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "SouthernCaliforniaExploration", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies a shared account, see WP:ISU. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. See also WP:MISLEADNAME WP:ORGNAME - FlightTime (open channel) 04:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do not understand the reasoning behind why my username goes against Wikipedia's policies. There is no attempt at deliberate misleading of any sort at play here. I simply enjoy exploring the breathtaking land of Southern California. How this could be an deliberate attempt at misleading others is beyond me. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The standard template (above) for this issue, or I, make any mention about
deliberate
, I said,implies shared use
. The links to our user name policy I gave you, (WP:Implies Shared Use, WP:Misleading usernames and WP:Promotional usernames), explains in detail the concerns of your account name. Please review these links to the username policy guidelines. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The standard template (above) for this issue, or I, make any mention about
Hello, I'm Andrevan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrevan@ 23:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andrevan@ 23:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Important 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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
Doug Weller talk 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
August 2022
[edit] You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Second Amendment sanctuary. and using a misleading edit summary."Fixed Grammatical Errors and Poor Wording" did not mention the major change you made and was actually just a spelling issue, "violative" should have been "violating" Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- High Capacity Magazine Bans, Assault Weapon Bans, and Red Flag Laws are all pieces of legislature which directly violate the Second Amendment. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. HCMB's and AWB's restrict the rights of American Citizens to keep and bear arms, an unalienable right guaranteed to us by our Constitution. Red Flag Laws permit politicians to sign bills which instruct law enforcement officials to remove firearms from the possession of individuals who are perceived as being mentally-unstable by the very individuals and organizations who wish to restrict the abilities of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense and national defense. All three of these are mentioned as acts banned or restricted by states identifying as Second Amendment Sanctuaries. There is no lack of maintaining a neutral point of view at play here. I joined Wikipedia in an attempt to maintain historical and legislative fact on pages such as these, only to realize that it is a platform fueled by ignorance, operated by fools who wish to make a mockery out of our Constitution and National Morals. Rest assured I will not be making further edits to this page.
- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Amendment II SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- And what that means is a matter of interpretation, not fact. As part of my political science degree at Yale I actually studied the Constitution. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Salvador Ronaldo Ramos (American mass shooter)
[edit] Hello, SouthernCaliforniaExploration. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salvador Ronaldo Ramos (American mass shooter), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.