User talk:Beaneater00/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Beaneater00! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Timothy Dexter have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I undid your edit was because of the improper grammar. If is says what you typed, then please cite a source before re-inserting it. CLCStudent (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glamoč, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Elias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:HERE comments related to recent edits

I will appreciate your feedback on the talk page of the article Joint Council of Municipalities (Croatia) related to the most recent changes you made which I believe have non-neutral POV. Also, I will politely ask you (if possible) to refrain from new edits until consultations on the talk page are over. Thank you for grammatical edits in the article and I want to state my assumption of your good intentions despite of this disagreement.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heya!

Hey! Thanks for cleaning up my revert on Bobby_Farrell - As you saw, the reason was "unexplained content removal" which was an attempt to clean up the removal by the IP, but I didn't realise that I actually reverted the wrong person and thus this. Again, appreciate it! TheEpTic (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

test User:Beaneater00 (User talk:Beaneater00) 14:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

I noticed that a message you recently left to 1kunstler2000 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Turks in Mississippi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Turks in Mississippi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Your signature is not policy-compliant. Please remove the image. – bradv🍁 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I have done so. -- Beaneater00 (User talk:Beaneater00) 15:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copying and pasting content

You cannot copy and paste an entire article into a brand new one as Wikipedia requires attribution. Secondly, per MOS:CAPS the title was already correct. Every word in an article title is not capitalized. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Thank you. -- Beaneater00 (User talk:Beaneater00) 15:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

test once again Beaneater00 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Jewish humor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae While reverting I attempted to explain that there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page and to direct the user with whom I was edit warring to it. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: It seems you have also engaged in this war. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot edit war. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can you, or anyone else. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not engaged in any sort of edit war. I suggest you read the links being given to you on your talk page because you seem to be headed to a lengthy block. Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war would exist had bradv (peace be upon him) participated in the talk page discussion instead of imposing his views. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do not understand what this warnings purpose is nor any of the others on your talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that edit wars are forbidden. However you imply that I am responsible for such a war starting. This is not true. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you are responsible for one started is irrelevant so long as you took part. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor What justifies an indefinite block? I have made many constructive edits to Wikipedia and reverted several dozen vandalisms. -- Beaneater00 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beaneater00, Could you explain your relationship with Basileus kai Autokrator Reginald please? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'd already compiled a list of things before you were blocked, here:

You wrote an article about Turks in Mississippi, which was completely unsourced and included the line "Turks have never permanently resided in Mississippi."
When confronted with the argument that you just made all that up, you argued that math was also made up.
You edit-warred to include a list of antisemitic jokes in Jewish humor, with the argument "Wikipedia is not responsible for not hurting one's feelings."
You had a racist and offensive polemic about Albanians on your user page.
You had a signature that absolutely-positioned a Serbian flag on the top left corner of every page you commented on, e.g. [1].
You insisted on calling edits "wandalism", even when they weren't even vandalism, e.g. [2] [3].
You proposed that others do the same, because it would be "more humourous".
You made nonsensical edits to other users' pages, e.g. [4] [5].
You performed several cut & paste page moves, e.g. [6] [7]
When told these were wrong, you claimed that Wikipedia "is not copyrighted". [8]

This is an astonishing amount of disruption in such a short time. I see very few constructive edits, and instead a lot of edits that waste other people's time. For these reasons, I support TheSandDoctor's determination that you are not here to write an encyclopedia. – bradv🍁 01:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor and Bradv,

1) It is most probably true that Turks have never permanently resided in Mississippi. I could not find any census data to the effect that they had. If this isn't true, please correct me.

2) I never said anything to the effect that math is made up. Both established mathematical theory and the theory of Turks in Mississippi are proven not by being mentioned in written works but by logical and philosophical inquiry.

3) I did not add the anti-semitic jokes, nor did I intend to edit war. I reverted bradv's edits to direct him to the ongoing discussion on the talk page, which he arrogantly refused to participate in. The 'Wikipedia is not responsible for not hurting one's feelings' line is a simplification of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia includes pornographic topics and other offensive topics to which many individuals might take offence. I see no reason that anti-semitic jokes should be excluded.

4) The polemic was taken from a talk page discussion linked to by FkpCascais' user page. I found it humorous and so decided to put it on mine. It should have been clear that I did not actually intend any offence toward Serbs based off of the several animated Serbian flags at the top of my user page and my pro-Serbian userboxes.

5) I joined Wikipedia less than three weeks ago and was not familiar with the ins and outs of every policy. I had the signature for perhaps a day and a half and changed it as soon as I was notified that it was not compliant.

6) The two edits you cited that I reverted as vandalism were removals of paragraphs sourced content. These may have been in good faith, but no explanation was provided for either edit. Also, I reverted several dozen edits which any user in good faith would agree were vandalistic in nature.

7) Talk pages exist for a reason. What is there to criticize about such a proposal?

8) Both of the users in question spent most of their time on Wikipedia editing their user pages/sandbox pages. I wanted to make it clear to them that they were free to edit parts of Wikipedia which didn't have their name on them, such as the main page. Nothing I did was unconstructive.

9) I thought (I now know this is incorrect) that the titles of these pages were non-compliant with English grammar rules and the Manual of Style. I also improved both articles in question. Once my error was explained to me, I didn't object the reverting of my edits.

10) By this, I meant that there was no problem with copyediting articles to change the name if it was necessary as the content was not bound to a certain article with a certain name. Also, see 9.

Here are some examples of constructive edits of mine: The majority of the article Lepi Mića [9]
Grammatical edits to the articles Alliance of Serb municipalities [10][11], Glamoč [12][13][14], Drvar [15] [16], Bosanski Petrovac [17], and Bosansko Grahovo [18]
Large improvements to the article Kosciusko [19]
Improvements to Joint Council of Municipalities (Croatia) [20][21]
Improvements to Ritopek, mostly grammatical [22][23]
Small improvements to Chanson de l'Oignon [24]
and many smaller edits to other articles. This list may look underwhelming but one must consider that I haven't been on Wikipedia for very long, and that I also have a life.

Beaneater00 (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Beaneater00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made many constructive edits to Wikipedia. I participated in an edit war, but I didn't start it, break 3RR, or attempt to add anything new to the article. I have made many constructive improvements to articles and reverted vandalism. Though I have broken some rules, I haven't objected to my errors being corrected. Therefore I would like to either be unblocked or have my block considerably shortened. Also, see above. Beaneater00 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. The combination of anti-Semitic trolling, logged-out vandalism, Confirmed sock puppetry via a vandalism-only account (User:Basileus kai Autokrator Reginald), and the other disruption pointed above means that you are a huge time-waster. Sorry, but we don't need more anti-Semitic trolls and vandals on English Wikipedia. We're full up already. You'll have to find somewhere else to troll. Talk page access revoked to prevent further time-wasting from this obvious troll. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

UTRS 30376 and unblock discussion

Prolonged discussion

UTRS #30376 was submitted on 2020-05-23 22:10:39 . This review is now being discussed. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna, Praxidicae, TheSandDoctor, and Bradv: I am reviewing user's unblock request on UTRS. Are there any other issues that require attention? Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion notes:

Turks in Mississippi unsourced OR
~~Confusing anti Semitism with Jewish humor,~~ blatant Antisemitismand then defending it.
Strange edit to User:Onehsot/sandbox
edit summary "Wandalism" with inverted and upright exclamation points?
In light of the statement, "I never said anything to the effect that math is made up. Both established mathematical theory and the theory of Turks in Mississippi are proven not by being mentioned in written works but by logical and philosophical inquiry," please critique in the light of WP:42.
Please do not "coach" other users. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean aside from the checkuser block and blatant Antisemitism? "Confusing" anti semitism with Jewish humor is really glossing over what happened. Praxidicae (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we could call it that. And I just remembered User:Basileus kai Autokrator Reginald. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot the edits as Basileus kai Autokrator Reginald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), partuclarly the deleted one. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin or anyone who has a say in this but I strongly oppose any unblock of this user at this time. I see no value in them returning and their past requests weren't convincing, though I can't see their UTRS request, I highly doubt they've changed their tune in 6 months. Praxidicae (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without sharing anything confidential, they did not address these issues at all at UTRS. I have asked them to do so. I'm now compiling a list for them to address. But, yeah. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra my understanding of UTRS is admittedly non-existent but isn't this a CU block? Wouldn't a CU need to give permission to even consider any of this first? This seems like yet another waste of time by this user...Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:Well-spotted! W/o going confidential, Done. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser on this page and at the other socks probably won't be helpful as they are probably stale, but if any interested CU would care to opine further than at the UTRS, that'd be cool. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Table92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all, Ima respond to user's reply on UTRS in 24 hours, if no one beats me to it. If there is nothing more to add than what we've got, I'll go with that. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get "You are not an administrator on the wiki this appeal is for." when I attempt to view the appeal, Deepfriedokra....so I can't really make an educated comment here at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks. I guess there is still some sort of vetting/registration process for UTRS. You could ask at WT:UTRS. Meanwhile, I will copy his reply here for more eyes. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I was just wondering if there were more concerns that led to the block than the list I made here. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User's response to my response

For your consideration:

I have edited differently on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have around about 1900 edits there, have created a few dozen articles, and have caused about two hundred and fifty vandalism pages to be deleted, and I have resolved issues that other users have had with my editing on my talk page. As for the "Turks in Mississippi" page, having read WP:42 I can now say that I know that logical and philosophical inquiry are not the only proofs needed to create a page on Wikipedia. And about the anti-semitic jokes I will post this text from shortly before I was denied talk page access and which was never addressed: 3) I did not add the anti-semitic jokes, nor did I intend to edit war. I reverted bradv's edits to direct him to the ongoing discussion on the talk page, which he refused to participate in. The 'Wikipedia is not responsible for not hurting one's feelings' line is a simplification of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia includes pornographic topics and other offensive topics to which many individuals might take offence. I see no reason that anti-semitic jokes should be excluded. About the edit to onehsot's user page, this text, which was also not addressed: 8) Both of the users in question spent most of their time on Wikipedia editing their user pages/sandbox pages. I wanted to make it clear to them that they were free to edit parts of Wikipedia which didn't have their name on them, such as the main page. Nothing I did was unconstructive. I did vandalise the English Wikipedia, but I also made many constructive contributions, and after being blocked from the English Wikipedia I made many constructive contributions to the Simple English Wikipedia.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see anything different from before except the WP:42 answer. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 30376 closed

UTRS #30376 was submitted on 2020-05-23 22:10:39 . This review is now closed. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carried over from UTRS 30376.

I have reviewed your unblock request and the issues on your talk page. It is good that you have been editing constructively on Simple Wikipedia. You have adequately addressed the need for reliable sourcing. I think you have adequately addressed your edits as Table92. However, issues remain. The whole Wandalism thing shows poor judgment or-- something. It would also be best if you refrain from coaching others on English Wikipedia. These issues are comparatively minor. To be honest, you have not adequately addressed reintroducing Antisemitic vandalism and then defending doing so. That you did not first introduce this vandalism is not the point. That you continue to not recognize the enormity of this concern is breath-taking. Unfortunately, there is more. Check user evidence indicates you edited as Basileus kai Autokrator Reginald. You must address these edits as well. Particularly the now deleted User:Jerome501/Sandbox/Neduardo. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]