User talk:VirginiaRainey

Welcome![edit]

Hello, VirginiaRainey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Ella May Wiggins.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ella May Wiggins.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Ella May Wiggins.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ella May Wiggins.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gang stalking have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content, adding original research[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VirginiaRainey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m a novice at editing Wikipedia, and when I was making my edits, several times, edits I had just made disappeared when I tried to grammatically correct them. Then I received strange e-mails from someone who was angry about it. The edits I made, such as adding terms and in one case de-escalating emotional content, were not very controversial actually, and were mainly adding information. I apologize that my clumsy ignorance caused it to look like I did the same edits repeatedly. I was apparently not operating the editor correctly. But when I’m allowed to return to adding this information to the page, I will also try to add the references, which I find more difficult to do correctly, but I will try.VirginiaRainey (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To remove this block early I would need to see that you understand specifically what was wrong with your edits and what you will do differently, to know that the disruption will not continue. This request doesn't do it for me, so I am declining it. I recommend that you use this time to do as Ad Orientem says below. The warning messages above were not intended to be angry but to clearly and politely communicate the issues with your editing to you. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As the blocking admin, I am not going to decline your unblock request. I will let another admin review it. However, I will note that you have received multiple notices and warnings from highly experienced and respected editors regarding problematic editing to which you did not respond until after being blocked. And this pattern continued even after the most recent warning. Your block is only 48hrs. I suggest you take that time to review applicable policies and guidelines in order to avoid any further unpleasantness once your block expires. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional[edit]

Thank you for referring my block for review by someone else. Despite what you say, the use of the editor in a clumsy way was not intentional. I didn’t respond to the only two messages I received prior to your block because they seemed weirdly angry to me. VirginiaRainey (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every message you received prior to your block was a standardized, pre-written message, commonly sent to inexperienced editors when they are editing in a way that violates Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Via the page’s history, I noticed you’ve been actively engaged in stopping edits to this page before. If that was a standardized message I received from you, it needs to be considered, that I, a novice, received it as angrily thwarting constructive work on the page. 2600:6C5E:517F:EEB0:12D:310C:7BD8:5253 (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I routinely clean up vandalism on that page, as I do on many others. MrOllie (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not True[edit]

There was nothing even controversial about the edits I was making. You, yourself, have failed to state what was wrong in your eyes. So I will join the legions of other people in the U.S. who have stopped trying to contribute to your grossly inaccurate catalogue of definitions. Good day. 2600:6C5E:517F:EEB0:4133:9D44:8F42:DD9C (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in, don't use an IP to avoid the block. You are not entitled to disregard reliable sourcing to insert your personal views in their place. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about "using an IP to avoid the block." Again, this new allegation is not true. I simply replied without logging in. I'm logged in now to see if there's a way to delete my account. It's worthless to my mind to have to argue with people whose self-appointed purpose is to censor reasonable contributions, but I will not continue, so you win. VirginiaRainey (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

==

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

==

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

VirginiaRainey (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]