User talk:Gtag10

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gtag10! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! clpo13_(talk) 02:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AI conflict[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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and formal community processes such as RfCs and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages.

Also, please note that talk pages are for constructive comments relating to the article not for unsourced personal opinions, see WP:FORUM. I have now struck the material you improperly restored, you might consider deleting it yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn users after reverting[edit]

Hi Gtag10, thanks for reverting problematic edits! Please make sure to warn users after reverting their edits, for example by using a template from the list at WP:UWARN. Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit[edit]

My decision to remove the section on Richard Spencer, who is already listed in the “notable alumni” section, was based on a discussion on the talk page, and my decision was not without support. As was pointed out with another similar section that was removed about Henry Ploegstra, Spencer’s actions had no bearing on his affiliation with the school and are not germane enough to the greater public interest to justify a separate section. His inclusion in the notable alumni section is more than sufficient.

I did see your argument on the talk page for keeping it. You were overruled by two other editors, three now with me. You were also overruled and charged with a BLP violation for a very similar “tabloid” inclusion back in February on this very page.

I am indeed deleting the section again, based on the group consciousness of the talk page, and if you revert it again without engagement of other editors on the talk page first, we’ll bump it up hill and let higher level administrators sort out the issue. I’m not intending any contentiousness here, and although I am an alum of St. Mark’s that’s the extent of my affiliation with the school—and I’m not afraid to mar its reputation when deserved. I’m just asking you for some decorum in future decisions to significantly alter an edit that was thoughtfully discussed with a consensus of editors. Thank you! Alanrobts (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the Richard Spencer discussion to that talk page. I don't believe I have ever been charged with a BLP violation, so not sure why you are claiming that either. You are showing a continued pattern of making false personal attacks. I would prefer if you could not do that.

Thank you for noting your COI. I will note that I have never attended St. Mark's, but I have family members who have, so I am relatively involved in the community. I believe I have had civil conversations with you IRL in the past. Let's please extend that to Wikipedia. Gtag10 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]