User talk:Rdiazjry2k

September 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Killing of George Floyd. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Twice removing information there's consensus on; please go to talk and see previous discussions and FAQ —valereee (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is necessary to specify the race of the killer & the victim -- that Floyd was black & that Chauvin is white. It is completely irrelevant information & only fuels the further divide in our society about race. It is race-baiting, pure & simple. Rdiazjry2k (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not. Wikipedia reflects, as accurately as possible, what is being said in reliable sources. If reliable sources -- WSJ, NYT, etc. -- were not mentioning the race of the two men, we wouldn't either. We are not fueling a divide. We are reporting on it. —valereee (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race[edit]

I don't see why it's necessary to specify that Floyd was black & that Chauvin is white. In what way is the race of the killer & the victim even necessary to mention? Rdiazjry2k (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources say it's important, so we must as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To further emphasise its importance; the significance of Floyds / Chauvins race is that it is seen as emblematic of issues already prevalent across the US related to race. The idea that the race of a victim is irrelevabt where it is being suggested that it played a significant role in not only how he died, but also how he was treated before and in subsequent coverage, is dishonest. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Mentioning the race of either two parties only further fuels the racial division in society & it is pure unnecessary race-baiting. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that race played a factor in Floyd's death. Floyd's death was NOT race-related Rdiazjry2k (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. In this case, reliable sources say a Black man died when a White cop kneeled on his neck. Wikipedia doesn't just ignore that it's being discussed. If reliable sources weren't mentioning race, we wouldn't either. —valereee (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ezra Miller. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Miller is a he. Referring to a singular individual by plural pronouns makes absolutely no sense. And having pronouns by your name is stupid. Rdiazjry2k (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your beliefs about pronouns, but you must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing. Please see MOS:GENDERID. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ezra Miller. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. It's correcting to make it grammatically correct. Ezra is not multiple people; HE is a singular person. Rdiazjry2k (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note "DO NOT REMOVE //African Americans|black//; that means do not put African-American in place of black either; consensus on talk page is to retain it here", is clear, you should not have removed this, or what it referred to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Sexual orientation—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)} 01:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sexual orientation. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sexual orientation, you may be blocked from editing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Rdiazjry2k. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Adakiko (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spreading lies like the idea that there are more than two genders. Rdiazjry2k (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Flash (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Prefall 04:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Sideswipe9th. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bella Ramsey have been undone because they did not appear to use the name and gendered words that match with the subject's most recent reliably published gender identity. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well that it's absolutely incorrect to use the pronouns they, them, their and theirs towards ONE, SINGULAR individual person. If one, singular individual person is male the correct pronouns to use towards this person are he, him and his. If one, singular individual person is female the correct pronouns to use towards this person are she, her and hers. Stop indulging in people's attention-seeking delusions. Rdiazjry2k (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misgender article subjects, as you did at Bella Ramsey. Wikipedia articles should always use the name and gendered words in accordance with the subject's latest reliably published gender identity. Repeated misgendering of article subjects may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misgender Ramsey. She is an adult, human female therefore her correct pronouns are she, her and hers. Non-binary is a load of pretend, fairy tale nonsense and an attention-seeking delusions. Ramsey is a she as she is ONE, SINGULAR individual woman. She is not a group of people. Rdiazjry2k (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 16:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]