User talk:Pyromilke
April 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not know which edit you're referring to.Pyromilke (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just about all of them, but specifically the edit to Talk:Joe Biden[. Don't solicit defamation anywhere on Wikipedia.. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Joe Biden has said some very racist things. And why would defamation of Biden not be allowed, but defamation of Trump is?Pyromilke (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- A, read wp:legal B, We go with what RS say, now if you have any RS saying "this statement by Biden was racist" sure we might be able to include it. But we do not engage in tit for tat edits. RS of characterised many of Trumps statements as racist or racist dog whistles. So this is why we allow it, because RS say it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Arguably, Biden has said/done more racist things than Trump, Biden wrote a crime bill that targeted black Americans. You can just admit you're a hypocrite and move on but don't delete talk page suggestions without trying to have a conversation about why it should or should not be added, it's against talk page rules.Pyromilke (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Read wp:npa, and learn to indent.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think learning rules about not deleting other people's talk page comments are more important
- As is not calling other users hypocrites (even if you think they are).Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- As in deleting other people'c comments without discussing them on said talk page
- Talkpages aren't fora in which you may advance broad arguments or complaints - they are a place to make specific suggestions for article improvements based on mainstream sourcing. Posts that do not adhere to that requirement may be removed. See WP:NOTFORUM. The same post would be removed at Talk:Donald Trump on the same grounds - it's unsourced, unactionable and a waste of volunteer time. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Read wp:indent And yes it is OK to remove talk pages posts if they are disruptive. Yours can be seen as that as it seemed to be just trying to make a point (read wp:point), reinforced by your statements here that this seems to be all related to your desire to see claims of racism removed from the Trump article. Not helped by your first edit here [[1]], which is a violation of wp:soap. So yes I can see why they saw your post here [[2]] as disruptive. I would not have called it trolling, and personally would not have removed it, but I can see why they did.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey brother just wanted to say thank you for standing up for what’s right. Saw you correct some idiot on calling Trump racist on Trump’s talk page and decided to pitch in. I added the last paragraph(sorry if they took it down). But yeah, just wanted to encourage you cause I’m done with the BS on this website and you clearly are too. God Bless, keep fighting.
Notices
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.
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.
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.
Template:Z33 Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:2021 Haiti earthquake—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
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.
Template:Z33 Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Saying they're two genders is a fact, and facts aren't against wikipedia's rules so I see no reason for this. Pyromilke (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)