VOR707TRX

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ram Rebel TRX has been accepted

Ram Rebel TRX, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, I'm You've gone incognito. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Rebecca Kiessling seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rebecca Kiessling. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Wikipedia detests the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in favour of a more neutral and straightforward alternatives such as "anti-abortion advocate/movement" and "abortion rights advocates/movement". See this relevant discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#Anti-abortion_or_pro-life? In any case, I've reported you for your disruptive edits on that article. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rebecca Kiessling

Hello VOR707TRX. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert again without getting prior consensus on the article talk page. Below, I'm also alerting you to the abortion discretionary sanctions which allow administrators more scope for enforcement on certain topics. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Rebecca Kiessling is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB

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 abortion. 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Reminder, from above:: You may be blocked if you revert again without getting prior consensus on the article talk page. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Rebecca Kiessling

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Due to your new revert of 17 December which you made in spite of my above warning. You didn't obtain any consensus on talk to make this edit, in fact you have never posted on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Could you review the latest edit made by this user? I don't believe some of it are neutral by Wikipedia's community guidelines. He has also violated WP:1RR by making two reverts in this edit. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

at Rebecca Kiessling. It looks like you have no intention to stop reverting, or to wait until others agree with you. See the above warnings for background. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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).

VOR707TRX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reporting user falsely claimed unneutral edits were made, yet when pressed to cite even a single example of an "unneutral edit"; user failed to produce any specifics. To wit, reporting user asserts that "legal activism" (one of the changes) is less neutral than "anti-abortion activism". Every change made included a reference substantiating the claim. If there is disagreement on that fact, I am open to discussion.VOR707TRX (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. You need to address this in your unblock request. WP:GAB has more advice, including avoiding writing about the actions of other people. Yamla (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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.