User talk:BeastBoy3395

Welcome!

Hello, BeastBoy3395! 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! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests 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 Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for 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 Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
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

BeastBoy3395, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BeastBoy3395! 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! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Rape jihad 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. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @C.Fred: While BeastBoy has pushed the limit with four reverts in a 24hr period, I will defend him in noting that one of those was to rescind a vandalistic edit that another editor had restored. (@BeastBoy3395: Please keep an eye on the clock, my fellow man!) Pax 06:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies?

Awfully sorry if I jumped the gun, I'm a bit disoriented right now. I'll go to sleep and if I was indeed correct (as I suspect I am) I'll get back to you then.Bosstopher (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will see you tomorrow. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry. Looking over it now it's clear you were right.Bosstopher (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to remove an AfD flag

The debate is just starting. Please leave it. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please read and follow any policies that you are referred to by experienced editors. Failure to do so may invite sanctions. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring May 2015

Your recent editing history at Love Jihad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. You can be blocked for violating WP:3RR. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BeastBoy3395 misrepresenting sources. Thank you. Huon (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Don't remove other users' comments as you did at ANI or you will be blocked. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I removed no one's comments. ? BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it happened innocently, probably the result of an edit conflict, but you did delete a comment left by User:Beyond My Ken in another thread. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely by accident. I was putting a comment, and out of nowhere Beyond Ken's got removed. Don't know how that happened. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it was an accident, or indeed the notorious "ANI bug". Don't worry about it, BeastBoy. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm serious. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that it was an accident. I've done it myself, especially on high-traffic pages like ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm serious too. The ANI bug exists. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Reference errors on 10 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Lisa Murkowski page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, disruptive editing, as you did at Rape jihad. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BeastBoy3395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize for edit warring at Rape jihad, and I promise I won't do it again if unblocked. I only did it because I was angry that material I liked was being reverted and I thought I was justified; nevertheless, it was wrong, I shouldn't have done it, and I now know what I did was wrong. If you ubnlock me, I'm willing to submit to a 1 week restriction from editing the Rape jihad article, and I'm also willing to submit to a promise that I won't revert another user's edits unless it's obviously vandalism, or unless I have consensus to do so. Thank you. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block has expired. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked anymore. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The image and comment at the top of this userpage is highly offensive, polemic and insults an entire population. If it is not removed, I will be reporting this to AN/I. Scr★pIron^IV 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it. If BeastBoy3395 restores it, they should expect to be blocked.- Mr X 15:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to create an encyclopedia, especially per this edit. See also this ANI thread. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 13 May 2015 (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).

BeastBoy3395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for that edit on my talk page, it was in bad taste, and it was a bad attempt at humor. Please note that I removed an offending sentence in this edit. I have always made many constructive edits to the encyclopedia, and I have even created an article, this one in particular, with very good sources and stuff. I know my conduct was wrong, and I don't want to be blocked forever on Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm asking that my block be decreased to a week. A week, that's all I want. If I ever do anything disruptive again, just ban me forever. If you don't agree, is there any chance I could take a Standard Offer approach? BeastBoy3395 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think you will find that we don't find antisemitism or other forms of bigotry funny here, really nothing about the posts indicates it was meant as a joke. The part you removed was offensive but so was the part you did not remove. This just coming off another block where your unblock request has the same familiar promise not to do it again. The fact that you promised to stop on form of disruptive behavior only to move on to another only makes me think this pattern will continue.

I am declining this unblock request. The standard offer does apply, I suggest you take the advise given there. Chillum 19:47, 13 May 2015 (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.

Alright Chillum, so all I need to do is wait six months, without any disruption or sockpuppetry, you'll unban me? I can live with that. Also, this is my last thing I want to tell you, I understand if you decline, but how about decreasing the block to a month instead of a week? Did you think a week was too lenient? BeastBoy3395 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to adjust the block, though you may ask @Bishonen:. Chillum 23:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about it, @Bishonen:? An indefinite, six month block (how long I have to wait for the standard offer) seems awfully long. I've acknowledge my conduct was wrong and, as I've said, I've made good edits to Wikipedia. How about reducing the block to one month? BeastBoy3395 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The use you put an antisemitic caricature to is actually enough for me to say no. But I also note that your pleas above address only that one incident, as if my block rationale had read in toto: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for this edit". There was more, such as your misrepresentation of sources, per the ANI thread I linked to. Try the standard offer in six months by all means. I hope you've read the SO essay with some care, though, because it sounds a bit like you think staying away from Wikipedia for six months is a get-out-of-jail-free card. On the contrary, let me quote the standard offer: "This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card." You'll have to find an admin willing to open an AN or ANI thread on your behalf, and you will only be unblocked if the ensuing community discussion reaches a consensus to unblock. Frankly, I wouldn't count on it. But feel free to try. If you're able to write an eloquent and sincere-sounding appeal (to be posted for you by the admin who opens the review), it's possible, no doubt. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Or I could just switch my IP address and create another account (I have a dynamic IP, I checked). I've switched my IP before, all I had to do was sign in to my router, change a few MAC numbers, turn off the router for about 20 seconds, turn it back on, and I'd get a new IP address. Look, I'm not waiting six months. There's no reason to avoid the inevitable. Either you reduce my unblock to a period of one month, or I just create another account. Your choice. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to change their IP. Threats are not going to help. At this point I would say the standard offer does not apply. Chillum 20:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now threats to sock. I've revoked your talkpage access. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]