User talk:Mancalledsting

Welcome!

Hi Mancalledsting! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 220 of ^Borg 20:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mancalledsting, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mancalledsting! 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 experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of criminal charges in Minneaplis

Hello Man. As you can see, I took out your recent addition to the George Floyd article. That article is already too long, and there is no room to cover all alleged crimes by protesters, counter-protesters, and law enforcement. George Floyd protests in Minnesota covers some of the events in the Twin Cities, but I will not take a position on whether it is appropriate even in that more specific article. Kablammo (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Killing of George Floyd. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 lose their editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are warning me not report what is even in the Minneapolis Police Department article?Mancalledsting (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you to stop edit warring and allow the discussion you started to take place. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't taken place yet though, which makes me suspicious. Even new article acknowledges this too.[1]

Mancalledsting, I was going to post this at your ANI report but it was closed before I could. Here's the deal: you have added and re-added this material to the article three times. It has been removed each time, by two different people. That means it is controversial. If you add it again you will be guilty of edit warring for which you can be blocked from editing. So don't add it again. Make your argument on the talk page and wait for people to react. Give them time; nobody is online 24 hours a day. And realize that Wikipedia operates by WP:Consensus; it will not be included in the article unless there is consensus to do so. And stop being "suspicious"; it is unjustified and makes you look bad. There is no conspiracy here, just discussion about what does and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced, as "complete power" which Minneapolis mayor has over the police was sourced.[2].Mancalledsting (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are still trying to force this information into the article. You need to STOP THAT. It is WP:Disruptive. A discussion at the talk page will decide what needs to be included. Please note that we do not include everything that is "sourced"; we are not obligated to include everything that can be sourced. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are obligated to preserve good faith and not make allegations that I "force" this info, which was in response to the mentioning of the Minneapolis city council decisions and why they cannot be enforced. Even in the notice board, I stated I was willing to compromise. Including the city council decisions while excluding that they are unenforceable makes them very unencyclopedic and suggests activism propaganda.Mancalledsting (talk)

Please discuss this at the article's talk page, where I have posted a detailed reply, with an analysis of the current content of the article and areas that could be tweaked. By "forcing" I meant, do not add your version of stuff to the article while it is still under discussion. Propose your changes at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, James Brown, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to do so. I was intending to source both articles mentioned in the Gorgeous George article. I have also now included a new article with more wording on what Brown said too.Mancalledsting (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the new sources don't work. Always check your links before adding them, and use the preview button as described below. Sundayclose (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not a jusgood tifiable excuse in this case. Two are still accepted on the Gorgeous George article and one newer source is easy to read.[3]Mancalledsting (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bob Dylan 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be stalking some of my other edits and are only demonstrating that you don't like the edit, even though it is backed by reliable sources.Mancalledsting (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at LGBT rights in the United States 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GLAAD and Human Rights Campaign sources not good enough?Mancalledsting (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point entirely. Reliable sourcing is required on Wikipedia, but alone it is not sufficient. The issue is not sourcing. It's a matter of whether there needs to be a separate section for conversion therapy. Two editors disagree with you. Instead of edit warring, you need to get consensus on the talk page.

You have a serious misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Allow me to respectfully suggest that you slow down and discuss things when others who disagree with you instead of charging in with guns blasting. You have edited less than one month, and you have received multiple warnings during that short time. Slow down, read some policies, and discuss. Otherwise you are headed for a block from editing.

Also be aware that two editors can have several common articles in their watchlists. Editing those pages is not "stalking". You need to read WP:NPA before making accusations. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you missed the point entirely and have a very serious misunderstanding. I know what reliable sources are. Your feeble guns of rant don't intimidate me. You gonna send a fellow goon after me now?Mancalledsting (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy

I have been reverting your addition of content regarding the APA "ban" of conversion therapy. In fact, the APA does oppose the practice, and advocates for legislatures on state and federal levels to enact bans, but they themselves do not have the authority to actually ban the practice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits referred to the organizations which banned the practice among their licensed doctor. You are quite mistaken if you thought I was referring to all practices.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has banned conversion therapy. Per the source you cited, the American Psychological Association states:

Affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity; reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation; encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others' sexual orientation

while the American Psychiatric Association states:

... In 1997 APA produced a fact sheet on homosexual and bisexual issues, which states that “there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation.”

The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great and include depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian are not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed...

Therefore, APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or is based on the a priori assumption that the patient should change his or her homosexual orientation

Neither of these statements amounts to a ban. The associations do not have the legal authority to ban conversion therapy, although they do have the mandate to recommend to their members that conversion therapy may be harmful and has no proven therapeutic value. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are a pathetic propagandist. They even have the power to enforce their bans through expulsion of members who are willing to practice it.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, you'll need to provide a reliable source for that claim. (To be clear, I believe there should be a worldwide ban on this practice, but I don't believe we should engage in adding information to Wikipedia which does not verifiably reflect the facts.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Mancalledsting. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redskins

To whoever may send me poor excuses to criticize my decision to include the info regarding the Washington Redskins name, they are backed by very non-tabloid sources which note how close the NFL season makes the name change too hard[4] and how the Redskins have not been in contact with the Native American petitioners and that the head coach claimed the team wanted to continue “honoring and supporting Native Americans and our Military."[5]Mancalledsting (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an experienced editor, you should know that the burden is on you to gain consensus for changes you wish to make, and the appropriate place to do that is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, which is why already sent a talk page message.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Your recent editing history at Killing of George Floyd 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mancalledsting reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During your very short tenure here you have been edit warring across multiple articles. In addition, your edit summary here implies that you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Please ensure you adhere to our guidelines regarding content disputes and policies regarding edit warring when the block expires; if you find yourself consistently at odds with consensus and collaboration you will likely find yourself blocked for a much longer duration.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body Camera reverts are not good propaganda

I am a native Minnesotan and am watching what I sourced on WCCO-TV. Erasing my reliable sources is clearly political propaganda, which is also backed by the fact that the three revert rule is usually a 24 hour block, which I know from a long history of experience. Mancalledsting (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Now my new account is blocked indefinately for pointing out the truth. Such a shame the televised truth hurts[6]. George Floyd will not bring the Second Coming. Deal with it.Mancalledsting (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Though I do not expect to be unblocked by you propagandists, I am warning you that the body camera footage is sourced and someone else can add it https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/07/15/mpd-body-camera-video-shows-distraught-george-floyd-im-not-that-kind-of-guy/ Unjust blocking for propaganda makes you very vulnerable. I am spreading the message about you on YouTube and will do so on Facebook too

Decline reason:

You are ~~lying about what the body camera footage shows~~ misrepresenting what the article says, you edit warred about it, and you are abusing multiple accounts. I have now revoked your talk page access. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2020 (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.

In Manncalledsting's defense, I don't think he's lying. I think he's simply incapable of reading sources and understanding what they say without mixing in his own conclusions. E Eng 23:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, okay fair. It is a misreprenstation and I'll edit it accordingly. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Bagumba. E Eng 00:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)^{[Confused editor?]}[reply]