User talk:Sleepflower70

May 2022

Hello, I'm Smallangryplanet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Graham Linehan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Graham Linehan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality, biography of living persons

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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of Wikipedia if you can lie? It may suit your narrative but it is potentially libelous. Sleepflower70 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, everything we write is based upon what reliable secondary sources say about a given subject or topic. In the case of Graham Linehan, there is strong consensus within those sources that he is an anti-transgender activist. If you have an issue with what the sources, including media organisations, human rights organisations, charities, researchers, and authors, are saying about Graham, you may wish to contact them and try to get them to issue a correction. However unless and until those sources issue such a correction, we will continue to use whatever language is used by reliable sources on Graham.

I would also suggest that you are very careful with how you use legal terms on Wikipedia, as there is a policy of No legal threats that applies to talk pages and edit summaries. I do recognise though that you haven't made a threat, I just wanted to make you, as a new editor, aware of that policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Andrea Long Chu, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:GENDERID is very clear: Wikipedia uses the preferred pronouns of the subject of the article; we do not change pronouns according to how the subject identified at a given point in their life. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of inaccurate information. Its clear that the people that write these contributions control the narrative. Any edits that are factually correct are dismissed because you have full control of what's printed. If I wanted to find out anything of worth about a subject or person, I would not be using Wikipedia. Sleepflower70 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]