User talk:CrossoverManiac

Welcome![edit]

Hello, CrossoverManiac! 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 me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Goodnightmush^Talk 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

January 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Cynthia Tucker appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. AUTiger » talk 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was changed by CrossoverManiac (u) (t) deleting 15131 characters on 2008-02-26T23:20:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steam engine[edit]

My sincere apologies. Think I cocked up a bit with a reversion there and blamed you for someone else's edit. Sorry Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This came out here. (I nearly blamed you, too.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women on Waves[edit]

Does this group describe themselves somewhere as "pro-abortion"? I was wondering why you changed the link to read as "pro-abortion" although it links to "pro-choice."

CrossoverManiac (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Terms like 'pro-life', 'pro-choice', 'anti-choice', 'pro-death' are nothing but 1984-style Newspeak designed to either invoke a feeling of benevolence for one side (pro-choice and pro-life) and invoke negative emotions directed at the other (anti-abortion, anti-life, pro-death). The issue is abortion: sides are either pro-abortion and anti-abortion. There are those who are anti-abortion who are pro-death penalty, so are they pro-life. And there are those who are pro-abortion who are against school choice or people choosing to own firearms, so these people can't be pro-choice. The term anti-abortion and pro-abortion are the most accurate terms that can be used for both sides of the debate. Anything else is focus-group driven buzz words.[reply]

I see that we're at a disagreement on which term should be used in the article. I'm going to open a discussion on the talk page of the article. Feel free to contribute your ideas. Joyous! | Talk 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Carlos Latuff because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Denniss (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Carlos Latuff. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Carlos Latuff. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with you. Wikipedia is not a forum that allows to to add your negative opinions to a living person. If you are not here to edit constructively, your account will be blocked for a long period. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of liberal "supporting" free speech, you hypocrite.

Carl Benjamin[edit]

Hello. Per WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATDEF, categories will need to be supported by reliable sources, and should only be used for defining traits. The article we have on Carl Benjamindoesn't explain that he is an atheist, nor does it explain why this is biographically important. This will need to be supported first. Afterwords, a category could be added. The place to discuss this further is the article's talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Benjamin, on his own Youtube channel, stating that he is an atheist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2B90w9EogQ --CrossoverManiac (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notices[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 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.

Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indefinite block in the simple sense of an indefinite term. If you can make a convincing unblock request that addresses your recent grossly inappropriate conduct, then a way forward under a topic ban encompassing biographies and U.S. politics could be found. But right now, you are not participating in a manner that advances the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]