User talk:CensoredDog

I have created this talk page because it seems that other users in the past have reverted edits pertaining to Morrison Academy's views on LGBT, same-sex marriage, and creation science. Lest I be accused of misrepresenting Morrison Academy, I have cited the exact source of such information--Morrison's own website and personnel manual. This is a friendly reminder that, if edits about Morrison Academy's views on LGBT, same-sex marriage, or science keep getting reverted for no apparent reason, then I will have to appeal to Wikipedia to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent such behavior. We believe in freedom of speech.

Morrison Academy's views on science: https://taipei.mca.org.tw/academics/middle-school/curriculum/science/ Morrison Academy's views on same-sex marriage and LGBT: http://wiki.mca.org.tw/doku.php?id=policy_manual:3000_personnel

PeeingDog (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Morrison Academy. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 06:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Academy LGBT and science content deleted due to "proselitising"

Content about Morrison Academy was deleted on the basis that I was "proselitising [sic]." This is a claim, not an argument, and is just one of several reasons that the deletion of the content I added was unwarranted.

The irony is that I have posted the information because Wikipedia claims that the Morrison Academy page "contains content that is written like an advertisement," and some information about its stance on LGBT and creation science can make the page much more objective.

I have made it clear that I am not saying whether Morrison Academy's stance on LGBT and creation science is correct. I am merely quoting what the school said to paint a more accurate and precise picture. Similar materials have been added without problems to many other pages. (For example, see information about anti-LGBT sentiment in Liberty University, Bob Jones University, etc.).

PeeingDog (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username concern

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "PeeingDog", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it refers to excretory functions that some would find offensive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I just read the Wikipedia Username Policy and I do not see "reference to excretory functions" listed as a violation of Wiki rules. Thank you for your concern. PeeingDog (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. I started a discussion here. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.

-- The Anome (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

CensoredDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I applied for a new username before I was blocked PeeingDog (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I also think this is too pointy, as noted below, and as such I am declining this request. You are free to attempt to convince another renamer to carry this out, but I think you would be better off choosing something less problematic. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

name change to CensoredDog

Meh, looks pointy to me. Anyone else? Feel free. DlohCier ekim 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Since you commented in your latest edit summaries that your edits shouldn't be reverted without good reason: Firstly, I don't think many people revert without a reason that seems good to them. Secondly, Wikipedia's stance is "Bold edit, revert, discuss" - that means that when your edits, such as the ones to Morrison Academy, get reverted, then a consensus should be established on the talk page, and you shouldn't just re-add the content (not even while the discussion is ongoing). Huon (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

"Firstly, I don't think many people revert without a reason that seems good to them."

First, I never claimed that people revert without a reason that seems good to them. I was referring to a good reason, period. What constitutes a good reason should be discussed.

"Secondly, Wikipedia's stance is "Bold edit, revert, discuss" - that means that when your edits, such as the ones to Morrison Academy, get reverted, then a consensus should be established on the talk page, and you shouldn't just re-add the content (not even while the discussion is ongoing)."

Your claim is at best controversial, at worst false. Wikipedia clearly states: "The BOLD, revert, disuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." CensoredDog (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, CensoredDog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Ear. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]