User talk:Dollismd

"Model" vs "Supermodel"

Please stop changing "model" to "supermodel." It has been the consensus for ages that "model" is the neutral term for the profession while "supermodel" is a subjective status. You've reverted numerous editors on account of this edit war of yours while leaving behind inappropriate edit summaries like this, in which would you sound like an angry fan and not an impartial editor. The preferred system has been to identify the subject as a model and use the ensuing lead paragraph to explain how they have reached "supermodel" status, a la Gisele Bundchen (prior to your latest edit), thus resulting in a lead that correctly/neutrally identifies the subject by their profession while acknowledging "supermodel" status in an encyclopedic way. For a clear example of how your edits are problematic is your own recent edit to Daria Werbowy. Instead of labeling her a supermodel, as with your edits to other articles, you chose "top model" - a purely subjective choice that puts her in a lower class than other prominent models despite easily being able to cite supermodel status. You even said in another edit history that models should be called supermodels in Wikipedia based entirely on Vogue calling them that. Well, Vogue has called Werbowy a supermodel but you chose not to use it, which comes across entirely as your own judgement, and this is not the place for that. Wikipedia requires neutrality, and the only neutral term for their profession is "model." Mbinebri (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These girls are supermodels... your banning me over something you dislike. Dollismd (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.munich-models.de/social/1610-vlada-roslyakova/ states shes a supermodel. Dollismd (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Carmen Kass. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Edit summaries such as this are inappropriate. Please assume good faith and do not act like you own the article. Mbinebri (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Carmen Kass shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mbinebri (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2023 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dollismd reported by User:Mbinebri (Result: ). Thank you. Mbinebri (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violations of the biographies of living persons policy, such as its sections about the restoration of content challenged by other users, verifiability requirements and the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dollismd, if I see uncivil edit summaries like [1] and [2] again, the next block will likely not automatically end after a week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last time

You've been asked several times to stop introducing the term "supermodel" into articles. You've also been told not to introduce unsourced material into articles. Since your block ended, you've resumed doing both of these.[3][4][5][6][7] I'm going to make this pretty clear: if you do this one more time then it'll be reported to WP:ANI. — Czello ^(music) 08:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, a message on my talk page will suffice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Restoring challenged content without the required consensus (WP:BLPRESTORE) after a block for exactly this behavior and a subsequent final warning.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]