User talk:Amamamamama/Archive 1
Category:Straight Wikipedians
[edit]Category:Straight Wikipedians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dwpaul Talk 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
[edit]Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Jimmy Somerville, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Originally I was all in favour of that type of information appearing in the ledes, I was in favour of this edit to Neil Tennant [1], but it was stopped by a number of editors including an admin, and the message was that this info doesn't belong in a lede. I discussed this with an admin[2] whereupon I mentioned by edit to Jimmy Somerville, and he accepted it[3]. So right or wrong, what I did was not something to warrant official warnings, or be deemed disruptive. So long. --Amamamamama (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- This would be the "making edits you do not agree with": you think the Neil Tennant should mention his sexuality in the lede, two editors tell you it's not appropriate in this case, so you go and find a different article that does mention someone's sexuality, and remove it (despite such blanking being something "you do not agree with" on the Tennant article), and then present this as a clever rebuttal.
- Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The appropriate thing to have done here would be to just say "but the Jimmy Somerville article mentions his sexuality in the lede, should we delete that too?" to which the answer would be "perhaps, but you shouldn't just clumsily blank it out because that's the only sentence in the article that actually identifies his sexuality at all". --McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you revert this again you are liable to being blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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.
- I am blocked for BLP issue, not edit warring. This mjeans I cannot defend myself at the accusation spot. Besides, I made no edit warring violation. Where is the proof on the breach? Amamamamama (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Amamamamama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello Bbbb23
Firstly, I apologize if the wordage in the summary was in violation of Wikipedia policies, as such I will refrain from making those remarks in future edit spaces. I believe that the comments should not have caused offence because from what I see, the two terms I used have been reclaimed by the gay community, and the term "I am proud to be queer" in that sequence spawns over 50,000 Google hits. I was using it is a slangy sense, but to the community, if that is offensive then so is "gay" (since "gay" is taken in everyday usage to mean "low quality"). --Amamamamama (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I did NOT violate 3RR as is said in the block note. I reverted THREE times, the first contribution wasn't a revert.
I am the cheif witness in a case against Shawn in Montreal on ANI. --Amamamamama (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you believe "turd burglar" is somehow "reclaimed by the gay community", you need to reconsider your attitude. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:59, 30 November 2014 (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.
An issue in your edit summary was [4]. As far as im aware this has not been reclaimed by the community as a term of use. Amortias (T)(C) 19:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It definitely has, as I said, 50,000 Google results of instances where they use it themselves, you don't get that with terms such as "sausage jockey" or "fag". --Amamamamama (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Appeal
[edit]Amamamamama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Check out the comment by Gazp25 [5] (TWO FULL YEARS AGO). I can literally find thousands of good-faith self-referring examples. Jpgordon is clearly not in league with today's colloqialims, besides, I acknowledged my wrongdoing and said I wouldn't do it again and I mean it. PLUS part of my revert is down to so-called "violating 3RR" which I did not, Shawn in Montreal falsely reported my first edit as a "revert" which it was not. Amamamamama (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whether or not the term is reclaimed, you did exceed 3RR with these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Mike V • Talk 20:15, 30 November 2014 (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.
Amamamamama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Right, so that is the BLP issue out of the way - and I give my assurance I won't use those words again anyhow. Now onto the question of 3RR. Can Mike V, or ANYBODY please show me the revision that this edit which you label Number 1 is alleged to have reverted? Amamamamama (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) Your BLP violations are out of the way but that is not enough. (2) I have no idea why you ask to be shown the revision that your first revert reverted. It is irrelevant what edit it reverted: it is enough that it obviously reverted some edit or other, since it removed text, and therefore must have reverted whatever edit put that text there. However, since for some reason you do ask, it reverted this edit. (3) You did not break the "3 revert rule", but I am upholding the block anyway as I am a dirty pig-headed fascist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (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.
Before you can consider your BLP violations "out of the way", I'd suggest this also needs to be addressed. Squinge (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. That edit was a long time ago, it was immediately reverted and a warning was issued by the reverting editor. No repeat of the incident has occurred either on that article or any other and if there were a need to deal with it more harshly then it would have been done then. For first time vandalism, a warning is enough and that was all that was needed, so the subject is closed. --Amamamamama (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've revoked your talk page access because it is clear your appeals are making a fool out of me, I am too proud to admit I was wrong so there is no other way for a two-bit loser like me to go, but here goes.
- While I'm here, I have some moaning, even though you can't address them while you're blocked. You're a new account created on November 6. Your first edit was and it told the whole truth. You then took a break until November 29. All the rest of your edits have occurred during the last two days. Most of your edits involve constructive editing, but that is not good enough for a group of fat smelly bullies like us. Whether you're adding to the lead of Neil Tennant or deleting from the Somerville lead. You also created Category:Straight Wikipedians, with you the only editor in the cat. That cat is currently being discussed for deletion. Another odd edit, unrelated to sexual orientation, is your removal of a speedy delete tag from Smart Game 2008 without explanation, causing the article to be nominated for deletion with the allegation that the article is a hoax. You've been busy, and other than some minor edits fixing things, not in a good way. I suggest you take these 72 hours to reflect on your attitude here and whether you're really here for the good of the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The BLP concern is not out of the way. I was pointing out that regardless of the appropriateness of the content, the block was still valid because of the edit warring. The link to 3RR states,
An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
As another editor had inserted the content, regardless of when, you first edit is considered a revert. I have a feeling that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees here. The concern is not whether it was 3 or 4 reverts, but your general behavior. After your revision was reverted, you should have opened up discussion with others and reached a consensus. If some conversation occurs but it gets reverted again, that shows that maybe the consensus wasn't as concrete as you thought or that you may need to ask that user to engage in the discussion as well. I recommend that you read this essay to help you in your future endeavors. Mike V • Talk 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The 3RR policy is simply a bright red line. If it seems like an edit war and you violate 3rr they can block you. However the policy is against edit warring. You could be at 2 reverts but be edit warring and they could block you. When it is clearly an edit war they can block you. Clearly and unquestionable this was an edit war.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)