User talk:RealityCheckTime

Talk!

Go on, DO IT! RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, RealityCheckTime. I'm extremely impressed by your familiarity with Wikipedia rules, practices and jargon as evinced in your very first edit. What's your main account? Please use it. Unless it's blocked, of course. This message does imply misconduct regarding your contributions. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott.

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, you may be blocked from editing. Please don't remove other user's talk page comments. If you do this again, or if you further disrupt Wikipedia, there is a very high likelihood of you being blocked. Given your brief history here, you may be blocked soon anyway. - Mr X 13:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give the same warning. Do not remove comments unless they are unambiguously disruptive or against WP:TPG. If you feel the comment is an issue and others disagree, there are other avenues (e.g., WP:ANI). EvergreenFir (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]