User talk:D.H.110

Currently I have been blocked through no fault of my own so please ignore the warnings and blocks while I try to get the issue sorted D.H.110 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Alert

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 all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

This is by way of a first and only warning. Any edits to topics related to gender or gender politics, broadly construed, may result in a topic ban from those subjects. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section is Contentious editing by User:D.H.110. Funcrunch (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Your edits are pointy and disruptive. [1], [2], [3] EvergreenFir (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Black Lives Matter has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Black Lives Matter was changed by D.H.110 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.963683 on 2017-01-29T11:33:40+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Black Lives Matter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello D.H.110, I reverted you edit to Kate Smurthwaite because it appeared unconstructive, and I couldn't understand your changes. L3X1 Complaints Desk 18:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a point of view. Your recent edit to BuzzFeed seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not edit war, and do not use obscure or unreliable sources to try and emphasize political points. Grayfell (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Hands up, don't shoot, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Varga RMI-1 X/H) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Varga RMI-1 X/H, D.H.110!

Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Intersting. Lookoing at you talk page, I do hope your username is not an ill omen (the Farnborough show crash, 1952)

To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Aviation articles

Hi DH, nice article on the RMI, a significant aircraft despite not having flown. To make your life easier when writing aviation articles there is a template for article creation at Template:WPAVIATION creator which takes the hard work out of the equation and leaves you with a standardised format. Check it out.--Petebutt (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Regarding you edit here. Nothing is going to happen, but you really shouldn't edit once it's been archived. It will likely be used against you though, if there's similar complaints. Nfitz (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

I am topic banning you from edits related to gender, broadly construed, due to continued unconstructive edits. This is in enforcement of the Arbitartion Committee authorised discretionary sanctions, as discussed above Guy (Help!) 18:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Violation of topic ban, adding tendentious material relating to sexuality and gender politics.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 23:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

D.H.110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

None of my edits have been disruptive. I have just been targeted by a group of people that seem to be blocking anything that they seem to find offensive, as it may hurt their feelings even if it has credible sources. They wrongly reported me on the ANI page and placed a discretionary sanctions warning on my page for no other reason than I have "anti-SJW" on my user page. So the topic ban was issued for no reason." D.H.110 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You violated your topic ban. I don't care if you are an anti-SJW or a SJW, your decision to violate you ban was deliberate. The block was placed after community discussion. I'm really rather surprised you were blocked for only 48 hours, here, I'd have expected rather longer. If you believe the block should be overturned, you may request this after the block expires; WP:UNBAN tells you how. Yamla (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

D.H.110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

none of my edits have been disruptive and most if not all have been properly sourced I am still unaware of the alleged community discussion that led to my block could somebody show it to me as I was not made aware of this discussion. The initial discretionary sanctions where made without explanations and so I think it is unfair that I have been blocked

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=none of my edits have been disruptive and most if not all have been properly sourced I am still unaware of the alleged community discussion that led to my block could somebody show it to me as I was not made aware of this discussion. The initial discretionary sanctions where made without explanations and so I think it is unfair that I have been blocked |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=none of my edits have been disruptive and most if not all have been properly sourced I am still unaware of the alleged community discussion that led to my block could somebody show it to me as I was not made aware of this discussion. The initial discretionary sanctions where made without explanations and so I think it is unfair that I have been blocked |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=none of my edits have been disruptive and most if not all have been properly sourced I am still unaware of the alleged community discussion that led to my block could somebody show it to me as I was not made aware of this discussion. The initial discretionary sanctions where made without explanations and so I think it is unfair that I have been blocked |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}