User talk:Taurusthecat
Welcome
[edit]
|
Sunspot
[edit]Hi. Can we discuss about the multiple reversions on this article? Obviously I and others feel that linking a tendentious popular account of a peripheral issue is out of place in this article, but global warming is a complicated subject in which sunspots surely are involved at some low level (see my article [Solar Activity] for example). However my feeling is that an article on sunspots should be about sunspots, and things conservatively known to be true about them. I would like to edit this whole article at some point, since it has a lot of weaknesses, but thus far have just tackled an old very bad introductory bit and your note on the documentary. I have not see that but have looked at the Wikipedia discussion of it.
Hugh Hudson (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sunspot
[edit]Several editors have a problem with the edit you keep making to the sunspot article. Please discuss on the article talk page rather than mindlessly re-adding it over and over again. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
May 2015
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mad About the Boy, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not disruptive editing. Wikipedia is a reference work to educate and inform and it is a completely valid entry to include the tracks on this album when they have been released specifically for the gay community, especially where mainstream music for a gay audience is almost absent. The references to the released covers of these songs are not intended to promote anything, they are intended to show that these tracks have been openly recorded for a gay audience in a 2008 album, something which is of notable social importance. There is no commentary on the work, no promotion of the work, no external links, no adjectives of any kind, simply a reference that the work was recorded and released in the public domain in 2008. [1] The artist is not notable but the fact these songs were done for a gay audience is. Taurusthecat (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at The Man I Love (song). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Conversation has shifted to Talk:The_Man_I_Love_(song) I believe the protesting editors approach to this issue is discussed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias #Selection based on notability of article topics Taurusthecat (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
- When? June 2015
- How can you help?
- 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
- 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
WikiProjects
[edit]If you want to notify people on WikiProjects about a current issue then it's best to use the project's talk page. The talk page of WikiProject Religion is here, for example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
When you post a new thread on a talk page then be sure to put it at the bottom of the page and include a header (see what I did here). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Pride 2016
[edit]As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
- Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
- Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
- Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
We're on Twitter!
[edit]| WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
|---|---|
 |
|
RachelWex 18:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16
[edit].jpg){kind=logo}
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.
We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.
More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JD Doyle, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JD Doyle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Taurusthecat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community.
The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.
Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.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:
Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
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.
Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I can no longer support Wikipedia
[edit]Says it all in the title.
The place has become a sad joke, even worse than it once was, Zionists have captured everything, I no longer wish to be involved or associated with this place, it makes my skin crawl. The consensus out in the real world (not that most hardcore wiki editors would know being they are so far up their own arses) is that Wikipedia is no longer a reputable source, this mostly stems from the bias involved in the editing and also the fact that what was once regarded as "reputable" sources are no longer trustworthy. Most of the mainstream media has been bought and paid for by lobby groups, including the Zionist movement, and this has only accelerated and got a whole lot worse during the covid scam which we were all subjected to and saw clearly firsthand if we were paying attention. The entire foundation Wikipedia rests on has now been eroded and is approaching unworkable. The issue now is that generally speaking the only sources which Wikipedia will accept are no longer trustworthy and the ones which are rapidly emerging as factual and impartial and trustworthy (alt media) are not accepted as mainstream enough. Well that means the narrative on here will slowly veer to the ludicrous and spew more and more state propaganda breaching the trust of the users who come here to find out facts. Wikipedia is becoming nothing more than a propaganda tool for governments.
The type of people who devote themselves to fulltime editing here is also an issue and to be honest always has been for me, which is why I avoided the place a lot of the time. These people are akin to worker ants who can't critically think properly and burrow themselves in all manner of petty rules by which to give themselves a reason to exist and create meaning in their (I assume) empty unfulfilled lives and exercise power over others and give themselves some synthetic feeling of importance.
Truth and common sense really do not matter anymore on here which is a shame. In the early days when I joined over 15 years ago it did matter. However, where I am concerned, it is just not a place I wish to be any longer, it's a trap which sucks you in and you try to do what's right but it makes you argue and fight and drain your brain on working out all the military-like rules which at the end of the day are meaningless and illusory as lobbyists and interest groups dictate what can and cannot be published by using their army of (essentially) human bots to carry out their protection of the chosen narrative.
I therefore withdraw my support totally from this website and will not be back, but I will not be following Wikipedia's ridiculous 'official' worker ant procedure only to find I cannot delete my account anyway. As I never created a talk page in the over 15 years I have been here, there is nothing to delete (I already know that all attributes have to stay), so I will be taking the quickest and least annoying route and simply be removing my email and changing my password to something random so another user cannot access the account, and then just completely removing myself from the site for good including it's use and recommendation and all public referrals to it. It's just not something I can support or be connected with any longer. I'm pretty disgusted at this point.
This comment I am publishing here serves as notice to anyone coming to my talk page that I am no longer here and will not see your comment or respond in any way.