User talk:Justdad78

Welcome!

Hi Justdad78! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Madeline (part of me) 19:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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.

Madeline (part of me) 19:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

Please read WP:BRD. You made a Bold addition to the page, were Reverted, now it's time to Discuss on the talk page. Madeline (part of me) 22:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hi Justdad78! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article on the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine contains multiple violations of Wikipedia policy on neutrality and bias. The statement that the society is not a recognized scientific organization is not supported by anything other than references to a number of news articles. When you look at those articles you will see that they either refer to the SEGM only very briefly or repeat that claim that it is not recognized without any supporting authority. Justdad78 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which, even if it were completely and utterly true, would entitle you to violate Wikipedia's behavioral policies concerning consensus and edit-warring. Enwiki recognizes a limited number of exceptions to its "rules" on revert-warring, but your reverts do not fall within any of those.

Believing something very strongly to be true, and therefore editing to enact that in article space, is an example of what Wikipedia editors call WP:RGW behaviour. And RGW is not really accepted as an explanation for causing disruption, whether in Article space or in Talk space. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Justdad78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have used the Undo function only once and at the same time engaged in a discussion on the Talk page for the article. I note that other users have summarily reversed changes I made for stated reasons without offering their own explanation.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have used the Undo function only once and at the same time engaged in a discussion on the Talk page for the article. I note that other users have summarily reversed changes I made for stated reasons without offering their own explanation.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have used the Undo function only once and at the same time engaged in a discussion on the Talk page for the article. I note that other users have summarily reversed changes I made for stated reasons without offering their own explanation.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have used the Undo function only once and at the same time engaged in a discussion on the Talk page for the article. I note that other users have summarily reversed changes I made for stated reasons without offering their own explanation.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}