User talk:Andhisteam

Andhisteam, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Andhisteam! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial

The term doesn't even have an article. You can't source the first sentence of a living person's biography to a couple of tabloid papers and a right-wing blog. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are anti-trans people out there who use microagression to suppress the rights of others. --Andhisteam (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there are. That doesn't mean you can keep inserting your original research ("Transblack", for example) into Wikipedia articles, especially those of living people. Please stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Harris-Perry talked about it, along with many, many others. It is not original research. --Andhisteam (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is their original research. Just because someone talks about something doesn't mean it exists. You need multiple reliable sources for that. If "transracialism" or "transblack" become a properly scientifically studied condition in the future, then fine. But they don't now. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying unless something is a properly scientifically studied condition, then it does not belong on Wikipedia? --Andhisteam (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly. You (or Harris-Perry, or anyone else) can't simply invent a condition and then expect us to treat it in the same way as a properly defined condition such as transgenderism. That should be obvious. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that some people are just in denial about Transblack and Transracial. It's further obvious that Rachel Dolezal is both. --Andhisteam (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I've tried to explain the problems your editing is causing, if you don't wish to accept that then that is your choice. It will, however, lead to you being blocked if you continue to violate WP:BLP on a relevant article Please take this as a final warning not to insert neologisms pertaining to Dolezal on her article. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may stop me from some editing on Wikipedia, but you will never stop the Transblack, Transracial, and Wrong Skin Movement movements from becoming mainstream. This is bigger than the both of us. One day Rachel Dolezal will be known for being brave and on the cover of Vanity Fair. --Andhisteam (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Talk:Rachel Dolezal does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Compassionate727 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing (racial identity)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk pages to discuss topic

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. There are more than enough places on the internet for you to discuss your racial and transgender theories. Wikipedia is not one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your edits at the Rachel Dolezal page, and especially its talkpage, are indicative that you are either trolling or lack the competence to edit articles on living people. You were given numerous options to halt, and you ignored them, even continuing to edit-war on other articles and place irrelevant notices on talkpages and elsewhere. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]