BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL
Hello, BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Discretionary sanctions alerts - gender and sexuality, post-1992 politics of the United States, biographies of living people edit
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 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.
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) 22:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry.
Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to COVID-19 vaccine—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 03:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please give a reason for your reversions. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert - COVID-19 edit
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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 03:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 edit
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
It's the edit warring, but also the inflammatory, insulting, and uncollegial edit summaries, including conspiracy battle cries like "Congrats on spreading harmful misinformation, wikipedia". Drmies (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- You can't deny that those stats are woefully outdated, and that some people probably have a weighing of risks to do. So yes, for some people, I do view that as harmful misinformation. And I seem to have a Science article that justifies my statement. I assume you can read and understand the issue here and update the article as appropriate, or anyone reading this. 1 in 6000 is way more than one in a million. The Rogan remark was true but inappropriate for an edit summary. But if you read that SCIENCE article you will see it is damning, when weighed against what is in the current wikipedia article. As for my statement about misinformation and wikipedia, I'm only anti-wikipedia when it's at its worst. In this instance, it is. I trust that you can see that by simply reading the Science source that was published a day ago. And as for my block--I would have had more GOOD FAITH if the editor that reverted me had the decency to explain why I was reverted. So, I don't think your "friend" acted in good faith. I don't think your comment about social media was done in good faith either. Ah why do I even bother. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you don't understand: I don't have to deny anything. I'm an administrator and I am not here to adjudicate content disputes. You're edit warring and those chatty edit summaries don't properly explain what you are doing. Your "some people", that's weasel words and they don't mean anything to me. If that source is so great, and if it is so important to you that it be included in the article (and that other information and other sources be deleted), argue your point on the talk page, don't yell "bullshit" in edit summaries. (After edit conflict: I read the article, it seems important enough to warrant discussion. I'm glad you said what you said about the Rogan edit summary. I would only add that such summaries just don't work in convincing other people. That realization, though, might serve you well if you request a lifting of this temporary sanction. My interest is to help you become a more successful Wikipedia editor, as well as preventing disruption in article space.) Drmies (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I was just shocked that this is outdated and perturbed at the implications. I would've imagined that it would be up to date because obviously it gets a lot of attention. Sorry for taking up your admin time. I posted on the talk page and someone should update it. If I'm allowed to discuss on the talk page that should be enough, so no need. This topic gives me a headache, so that might be for the best. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just an addendum, I know you don't deal with content disputes, but this is more for anyone who may be reading this...those Science figures were what Rogan's "guests who won't be named" cited almost a year ago. I wasn't upset over this two-orders-of-magnitude off figure because it wasn't updated in 24 hours, I'm upset that an obviously well-watched page would suffer from such a longstanding defect. And as someone in that affected demographic, that's when the rage sets in. Keep the ban in place, it's for the best. Cheers. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you don't understand: I don't have to deny anything. I'm an administrator and I am not here to adjudicate content disputes. You're edit warring and those chatty edit summaries don't properly explain what you are doing. Your "some people", that's weasel words and they don't mean anything to me. If that source is so great, and if it is so important to you that it be included in the article (and that other information and other sources be deleted), argue your point on the talk page, don't yell "bullshit" in edit summaries. (After edit conflict: I read the article, it seems important enough to warrant discussion. I'm glad you said what you said about the Rogan edit summary. I would only add that such summaries just don't work in convincing other people. That realization, though, might serve you well if you request a lifting of this temporary sanction. My interest is to help you become a more successful Wikipedia editor, as well as preventing disruption in article space.) Drmies (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Notice edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Kulldorff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)