| Revision as of 00:36, 29 November 2021 editStarHOG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,400 edits →Your edits on Sexual Objectification: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:43, 3 December 2021 edit undoCrossroads (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,519 edits AlertTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Greetings. I rolled back your edits on Sexual Objectification because they were cited arguments. One of your edit summaries stated that "many would disagree with this", well, either add those disagreements to the article with citations, or make an argument on the Talk page why the arguments/sources are invalid. I think the article needs a great deal of work, and it is worded very strangely, and it may have a significant amount of bias in it, but deleting sourced material is probably not the best way to make it better. ] (]) 00:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | Greetings. I rolled back your edits on Sexual Objectification because they were cited arguments. One of your edit summaries stated that "many would disagree with this", well, either add those disagreements to the article with citations, or make an argument on the Talk page why the arguments/sources are invalid. I think the article needs a great deal of work, and it is worded very strangely, and it may have a significant amount of bias in it, but deleting sourced material is probably not the best way to make it better. ] (]) 00:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ==Notice== | |||
| {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 ], 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 ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic. | |||
| For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. 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. | |||
| }}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:43, 3 December 2021
Island Pelican, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Island Pelican! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
Your edits on Sexual Objectification
Greetings. I rolled back your edits on Sexual Objectification because they were cited arguments. One of your edit summaries stated that "many would disagree with this", well, either add those disagreements to the article with citations, or make an argument on the Talk page why the arguments/sources are invalid. I think the article needs a great deal of work, and it is worded very strangely, and it may have a significant amount of bias in it, but deleting sourced material is probably not the best way to make it better. StarHOG (Talk) 00:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Notice
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 Misplaced Pages'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.