User talk:Gregnator

Welcome!

Hello, Gregnator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as IRKH games, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of IRKH games[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on IRKH games requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Forum for Democracy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. The mentioning of "far-right" has been discussed already, please start a discussion at the talk page if you want to change it. Also, the references are not opinion pieces. MrClog (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Forum for Democracy, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. MrClog (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage use[edit]

Talkpages are for specific suggestions concerning article improvement, backed up by sourcing, not for generalized griping about the article, other editors, or Wikipedia in general. Your comments about other editors on talkpages border on personal attacks, and the broad complaining doesn't advance the project. Please use talkpages appropriately for targeted improvements, with direct backup from cited sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Forum for Democracy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clog is not behaving according to Wikipedia standards of neutrality and objectivity. Clog has used hyper-partisan sources, which use wording which isn't back up by any facts or evidence. When explaining this, Clog keeps ignoring it. You can see on Clogs history that he has behaved this way towards others in the past as well. When I use sources, he ignores them and reverts any edits I have made, and claims that they are "destructive". As you can read from his reporting on me, he uses false statements. Not only does Clog claim I push a "Right-wing POV", he also claims that I am being disruptive. Not only are these false statements and lies, but it also shows the apparent bias MrClog has. I have stated before that my political leaning is "left-wing/Liberal". My only goal is to ensure that the topics I engage in are based on facts and not feelings. MrClog has proven him/herself to not be objectively neutral.Gregnator (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[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-1932 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.

Doug Weller talk 14:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about you has been initiated[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:NOTHERE & WP:DISRUPT: User:Gregnator. --MrClog (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are going topost there you should at least sign your posts. Carptrash (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[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 climate change. 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Seibt[edit]

Hello,

Just a message to say that an extensive and exhaustive discussion was had regarding Naomi's status - it was reasonably concluded that she is a climate change denier. Please do not alter the page pertaining to her in an attempt to remove or change this categorisation. --Knucmo2 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a climate change denier. A denier means not believing climate change is real, which is not her stance. She's critical about the impact humans have. It's a disgrace that Wikipedia has become so biased. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia is saddened by this extreme bias. Her entire page is hugely biased, opinionated and no NPOV is being applied. It's shameful Gregnator (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregnator, reliable independent sources describe her as a denier, and also characterise "lukewarmism" as climate change denial. This is not Wikipedia's problem to fix, and Larry Sanger's opinions are not especially relevant to how Wikipedia decides to handle topics where one side is arguing in transparent bad faith, as climate change deniers are. Guy (help!) 10:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, she has questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. In her own words, 'it is not really science at all'. Knucmo2 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Parler. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block me, idc. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of ideological battles. Shame on you. Gregnator (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]