User talk:ChicagoGuy11

Hey Mark,

You're here as an editor and so am I which means we have a common interest in providing quality information. I hope you don't have a personal interest in this page, it concerns me that you say "Your point of view." I haven't argued support behind it but rather defined the term. Point of view is irrelevant it means what it means. Since Wikipedia is a place to support knowledge I will continue to champion knowledge.

Though this is a disambiguation page, and I understand your point about formatting, however, I wonder if adding a line of context information is unhelpful? If you would like to recommend a page that better fits for this information or create one for the term, I welcome it.

Please stop reverting on Traditional marriage to reflect your point of view of what a traditional marriage is. It is not an article, but a simple disambiguation page and should not contain a definition as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the RFC clearly states there is no consensus to add an "explanation/contextualization".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are at three reverts (as am I). Another revert could get you blocked from editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Traditional marriage. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChicagoGuy11, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ChicagoGuy11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. 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) 16:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Traditional marriage. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2014 (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).

ChicagoGuy11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am still new to editing and learning of the various procedures, however, I've made attempts to build consensus on various talk pages describing evidence for proposed edits. In a nutshell, I would like to add the most clear understanding of Traditional Marriage while removing activist/POV language. Describing the term as "Opponents use this" is non-neutral language and should be removed. It begs the question, Opponents of who and that is there why? Additionally, the term "Opposite Sex Union" is traditionally used as a counter to "Same Sex Union" as coded language, this should also be clarified. The most common understanding today used by media on all sides is that Traditional Marriage: Describes a union between a man a woman. If that is the strongest meaning of the term and removes POV non-neutral language, then why are these edits not accepted?

Decline reason:

Because you kept reverting and reverting instead of discussing on the talk page, that's why. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (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.

About Me

Hey everyone,

I love this community and hope to provide fair info to it. I'm fairly new and have made some rookie mistakes but am always interested in learning, getting advice, and making things better. I can say that I've noticed people are passionate about their beliefs which is great but I'm the type of person who will be ready to challenge if that starts to breach fairness and get overly political. Feel free to leave a comment, I will always do my best to be respectful and expect the same of you.

Go bulls

Do not alter the historical record

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Traditional marriage, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @OrangeMike:, I had decided to change my comment in that I asked a question already answered so it was clarified in the new edit, that seems pretty constructive to me. lol I think that's reason enough and am considering changing it back with the reason placed... Glad you are contacting me though, I am thinking of working on a page describing Traditional Marriage with respect to sexuality... it seems that the idea has been proposed before and would love you to join. Many editors are claiming their narrative without letting new editors into the process so I am looking to partner with someone.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]