User talk:Masai giraffe

Masai giraffe, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Masai giraffe! 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 Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm Stevietheman. Your recent edit to the page Kentucky Derby appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In this and other articles, it has become clear that you are making changes that don't have backing in reliable sources. This is seen as a form of vandalism and will not be tolerated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC) It was Kent who jockeyed Giacomo and Funny Cide.[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding misinformation. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've blocked this account as you are clearly the same user as 96.28.163.103 (talk · contribs) who has been, and is currently, blocked for adding misinformation. I am not only blocking you for block evasion, but also for continuing to add this misinformation. This misinformation does not appear to be accidental, so I am giving you the opportunity to explain your edits. Let us take one particular example: the Kentucky Derby 2003 was won by Funny Cide ridden by Jose Santos. I have checked this extensively. You are adding that the jockey was Kent Desormeaux[1]. Is there any explanation for your edit? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, Kent jockeyed both Giacomo and Funny Cide, also his wiki page is filled with inaccurate info, kent has no sons, his wife is only 1 year younger, Kent and Keith are the only 2, There is NO KRISTIE,KELLI,KALEN OR KIP. Also kent is 31 years old so, I request you unblock me as a lot of these sources are incorrect

What do you make of Sports Illustrated, USA Today, New York Times, CBS News, ESPN? What on earth makes you think Desormeaux won this race? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Desormeaux won the San Diego Handicap in 1990[2], which according to you[3] would make him about 4 years old. According to the Washington Post[4] he was 16 in 1986, one year after you say he was born. Explain? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent's older brother says Kent's 31 years old at the Preakness, he was only a year old in 1986, also he won the San Diego handicap at 17 in 2002 He and his wife are expecting a baby girl on July 29th,Masai giraffe (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for this information? And how about all the articles about the 2003 Kentucky Derby? What source contradicts them? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki is kents only child, Kent is the last of 2 children. prove his only sibling isn't Keith, he is the last of 2 kids

I will take a look at Kent's family in due course. For now let's stick with the 2003 Kentucky Derby. Where does your information come from? On Wikipedia we base all information on what reliable sources say. Where are your sources? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kentucky Derby Museum says it was kent who rode Funny Cide and Giacomo. When he took the helment off, it was him.The reason I was correcting it is because kent told me that this info was NOT true. Kent has no sons, he is the youngest of 2 kidsMasai giraffe (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence about the 2003 Kentucky Derby is overwhelmingly against your case, and the date of birth in 1985 is simply unbelievable - not only from his racing and awards history, but all the press about him giving his age. I'll need to look further into his family, but from what the LA Times tells us, he's one of the two eldest of six siblings. Is the LA Times wrong? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes LA times is DEAD WRONG, watch Texas reds victory in breeders cup, kent says this ones for the Desormeaux family, my mom and dad at home are watching it. Why did he just say them, because it's the only two. Kent never talks about them, and I asked kent what was true, he was born in 1985, he won derby 2003,2005,2008. I will continue to post until you admit that I'm right and you're wrongMasai giraffe (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Newsday all six siblings recently rented houses together. Their mother's Facebook page says she's a mother of six, and coincidentally they're on the board of the DesOrmeaux Foundation. It seems apparent that when he said mom and dad are at home, the others were probably elsewhere. You appear to be wrong on many things. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've met kent, I meet both his parents, met his pregnant wife, met his ONLY SIBLING Keith. Kent does not follow her on Facebook because she's not his mother, kent said he has NO OTHER SIBLINGS, in his growing up life, it shows him and Keith, If THE SIBLINGS EXISTED, they would be at least shown r mentioned by Keith or kent, and kent has 0 sons, he's going to become a father on July 29th, and it's not a son, it's a daughterMasai giraffe (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Desormeaux is a very common name in french, so that lady isn't the only Brenda Desormeaux. Your the wrong one here, kent has 0 sons, derby wins are 2003,2005,2008, he is the last of 2 kids, HIS BIRTH YEAR IS 1985 I demand you unblock me, for adding true info to his page, that page is equivalent to an f on a test.[reply]

Please read WP:VNT for an overview of the relevant policy. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying about kent is true, he has no sons.

According to the Daily Racing Form he has two sons from his previous marriage. Apparently their relationship is complicated. The LA Times (again) and ABC News both have an interesting story about Jacob's health, whilst mentioning his brother by name. You seem to be wrong again, but again it's verifiability that counts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's only been married once, And the little girl is his first. He is close to Mike Smith's sons. Also, I claim that that article, that said the 6 MADE UP SIBLINGS rented 3 houses is fake. I looked on Kent's twitter page and he said nothing about it. He just said they were excited and ready for derby. And if the other 4 Existed, they would have been mentioned. I'm right on EVERYTHING Kent's 31, him having no sons, his derby victories being 2003,2005,2008 and him being the last of 2 Kids. That lady may not be his mother at all. Kent doesn't follow her on twitter because, HE'S NOT HER SON, it's probably a fake account. Until I hear kent say theirs 6, I won't believe it, after his 2003,2005,2008. Both the parents were their, they are never TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. Kent never mentions them in the family life, explain that.Masai giraffe (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that back up what you're saying? Without those, there's nothing anyone can do. And I think it's the only way you'll find yourself to being unblocked. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, continued perseveration of this sort is getting to the point that is constitutes a violation of WP:BLP (several untrue statements about multiple people) and talk page access could also be blocked. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this talk page needs to be used for proper unblock requests only. Masai giraffe, you need to stop adding unsourced, dubious information about living people here or I will take away your talk page access. You need to understand that WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS are non-negotiable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me, I will block you if you keep vandalizing my talk page. All the info I have posted about kent is correct. He IS 31, he has no sons, he is the youngest of 2 kids. He won the derby in 2003,2005,200815:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)15:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)~

July 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #68913

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #74788

is open and under contemplation. Yamla found no recent block evasion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking per WP:ROPE. Thanks @Zzuuzz: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:, This doesn't bode well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless. Looks like we decided the block was unjustified and the UTRS ticket just said what was needed to be unblocked -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted the opinion of the committee before I moved on. —- Masai giraffe (talk)

That is not their purpose. Their role is to remove adminship. What matters is if it is your opinion. Your unblock was predicated on your understanding that your conduct was wrong and that the block was warranted. An important part of being an admin is recognizing when one has made an error and reversing it. If I erred in unblocking you, I should reverse that error. @Ponyo and Zzuuzz: Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk)

:How do I seek consensus? Back in October Andy the Grump said seek consensus because he did say that there was differences in the sources.Still new to Wikipedia so learning what everything is about.  It said complex disputes can be taken to the committee:

Wrong. You seek WP:consensus on the talk page. You discuss and come to an agreement.. You seek WP:dispute resolution if you cannot come to an agreement.

You alleged @Ohnoitsjamie: abused the tools by blocking you. In fact, one of your block evading socks was blocked not for editing the article but for WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:sockpuppetry. That is not misuse of the tools. ArbCom does not settle content disputes. I should not have unblocked you without you showing an understanding of how to deal with a WP:content dispute. Please learn now.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the arbitration committee is for now. Masai Giraffe (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her reply, on the Arb request is disingenuous, if you read the thing. It was just the first of several items that made her unblocking a mistake. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User Masai giraffe

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 User Masai giraffe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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. Cherrell410 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I declined that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User Masai giraffe

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as User Masai giraffe, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is here-- User:Masai_giraffe. Please stop creating quasi user pages in article space. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Keith Desormeaux

Is that a typo? 781? 771? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry. Masai Giraffe (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you being patient as I learn ropes of Wikipedia. Masai Giraffe (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Any further removal of sourced material or other disruption on Desormeaux-related articles wil result in an immediate reblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masai giraffe: Sorry, no. If you think that was a threat to "misuse the tools," I should reblock you now. Your editing has been at times unconstructive, and you are on the brink of being reblocked per WP:CIR -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism per say and Jamie and I disagree about what content it should have and telling me I should keep content that in my opinion is not relevant to have in in encyclopedia so that I think is a breach of tools to prevent something you just don’t agree with. Masai Giraffe (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is where WP:CIR comes in. Your decisions are utterly bizarre. As we are talking about them, @Ohnoitsjamie: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am suspicious that the fall on Kent Desormeaux’s page was a hoax. I have nothing else to say to you 2, or are you the same person, because you said before Jamie blocked me because of sock puppetry. The number of skull fractures mysteriously changed in 2 different la time articles I will have to find that and oddly enough I have seen you too talking with each other Jamie saying yes to you noping me and you two were saying Masai giraffe is moving closer to a block. I have already notified the arb community and they will see that behavior and I hope you all lose your administrative privileges. Masai Giraffe (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you put in the edit summary when you removed cited content. I too have been in contact with the Arbs. You should hear back from them shortly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: third opinion, please. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, disregard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 00:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unmangling unblock request from block notice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

t I have been removing some info in articles regarding injuries, an encyclopedia really doesn’t talk about every single detail, it’s just supposed to jumpstart your research ohnoitsjamie and seem to be trying to poke the bear and I was telling them to leave me alone. I was just removing info that may or may not be true and I was feeling that it was unnecessary that it was added there, I will not argue with these folks anymore in future and will help improve Wikipedia with layout, grammar and encyclopedic info with reliable sources

Decline reason:

I agree with the below comment; I think your only pathway forward is the standard offer, and only then (most likely) if you improve your skills in the that time. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2023 (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.

Sadly, this is only one of a series of edits since you were unblocked that calls into question your competence. And the attitude change from thanking me for my help to accusing me of sock puppetry and emailing that accusation to ArbCom seems quite bizarre to me. So yes, I think unblocking you was/would be a mistake.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not alter declined requests or the block notice(you shouldn't be overwriting the template in the notice, but copying it outside). I received your email but I do not communicate about Wikipedia matters off wiki. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand sorry. Masai Giraffe (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please follow the instructions? like, "you shouldn't be overwriting the template in the notice, but copying it outside." You've done this yet again. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unwatching this page, so please courtesy ping me if user achieves unblock. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (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 at the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock|reason= my reason to be unblocked, read my edit history, I think bradv should have looked through my edits thoroughly to find out weather I was gonna focus on improving Wikipedia in good faith. I should not have threatened to tell this admin who I believe was misusing the tools to get me to side with them in the dispute that I was reporting them to the arbitration committee~~~~}}

. –

You seem to be working hard to demonstrate WP:CIR still applies. If you wish to make an unblock request, unlike what you've done above, WP:GAB explains how. Almost certainly any unblock request would be declined at this point, though. --Yamla (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are about to lose access to your talk page. Stop. Read and thoroughly understand WP:GAB. Preview your edits before saving them. If your preview does not show a properly formatted unblock request, do not save it. You won't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for threatening someone that I hop the got their tools withdrawn from them. If my block is lifted if someone is misusing their tools I will seek consensus and not threaten themMasai Giraffe (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block is for far, far more than that. You have worked hard to demonstrate you fundamentally lack the competence required of editors here. I see no path forward for you on en.wiki until you've spent at least six months and made at least 500 constructive, non-trivial edits on another project. Even then, your path to being unblocked here won't be easy. Yamla (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2023 (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.

You are not permitted to modify (or remove) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email

No, I will not respond to your email. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just tell me what my block is about? I don’t understand what I lack. Masai Giraffe (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally lack the competence required of editors here. See WP:CIR and the very many comments higher up on this talk page. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2023 (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 at the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock|reason= I will seek a consensus from the dispute resolution notice board from now on rather than remove sourced material ~~~~}}

. –

Talk page access

I have removed your ability to edit this page, because almost every edit you make here achieves nothing apart from adding yet further evidence that you don't understand what you are doing. Since your attempts to make unblock requests have no chance whatever of succeeding, preventing you from making them will help you, by saving you from wasting your time on them, as well as preventing wasting the time of the administrators who have to deal with them. JBW (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email access

I have removed your ability to use Wikipedia's email system, as you have abused it to make absurd personal attacks on Ohnoitsjamie and Deepfriedokra. Also, if after all that has been said to you by various editors, you really believe what you said about them, then that is yet further evidence that you absolutely do not understand what is going on, and don't have the competence to contribute to Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite revoking email access, user has violated this by abusing their meta account to evade the block. Please hold this against this user if they ever contest their ban. I strongly oppose lifting this block even if this user spends six months and makes 500 constructive, non-trivial edits on another project. --Yamla (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This cross-wiki harassment has continued. --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]