User talk:Kate Dee

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kate Dee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Talk:It Gets Better Project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Dan Savage shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Fæ (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Final warning

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had not yet read the above message when you saved this edit. Your edits are against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and biographies of living persons guidelines. You may not continue using Wikipedia to promote your personal opinions about Dan Savage. If you are not able to edit articles related to him in a fully factual and entirely neutral way, you should focus your work on the encyclopedia on other topics. You will be blocked if you continue in this way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome and offer to assist

Thanks for contributing, and I hope you are not finding the process here too frustrating. We have very strict policies on how we deal with controversial material about living people. I'd like to help you with reaching consensus on your recent proposed changes. Please see Talk:Dan Savage, where I just posted some info in support of your proposed changes. In order to avoid having any action taken against you, please consider limiting your edits to the talk page for now. Once we have all agreed on the text to add, we can get something added to the article. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have offered to assist you, but as part of that offer, I must ask you to stop negatively commenting on other editors. These are considered personal attacks. I am going to remove any comments where you have made negative comments about other editors. Please consider apologizing for this. This community works because editors are not allowed to engage in those sorts of personal attacks. For more, see WP:NPA. Jokestress (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, however those same editors must realize that their own posts have come across as personal attacks as well. Their changes haven't been in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, as the links I have put forward are 100% verifiable. To say that they aren't reeks of Trans-denialism, which in itself is a form of transphobia. If people take personal offense at that I apologise, however saying that those things didn't happen is just as offensive, if not more so. Kate Dee (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith with other editors and not ascribe motivations to them. Comment on content, not editors, and you will be fine. If someone directly attacks you by saying something negative about you personally, let me know, but most editors here are working hard to write articles that reflect the sourcing fairly, especially with living people. Please don't call other editors or their actions "transphobic" etc. You will be blocked if you continue. It's fine to make your case for inclusion or removal of information, but stay focused on the article and sourcing when reaching consensus. Thanks again for raising this important issue on this biography. Jokestress (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)