User talk:PoopingGirlOnTheToilet

Blocked

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.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2017 (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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

Sorry, I was just trying that out; now I know not to use names like that. PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". You haven't addressed that issue at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if I get an account, are you happy?

User:Ebyabe, you are being summonsed.

I don't have a problem getting an account, as you errantly supposed on that other page. So here it is. But are you saying that if I use this to edit, you won't be talking from both sides of your mouth by saying that I still shouldn't edit those things even though YOU, even as a NON-admin, WANT me to have an account?

canihavethisone (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Girl, please say what your intentions are here. You used a bunch of IPs at this talk to make unconstructive posts. You registered a profane username and posted such at your userpage. What are your intentions? User:Home Lander and others are encouraged to comment. How deep does this go? If you wish to make good edits and stick to one account, I would consider an unblock. If you are here to be unhelpful, then please go away. I am reasonable and understanding. Please tell us what you think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Anna Frodesiak, and thanks for replying relatively promptly. My intentions are, and always have been, to improve the project, of course. But these people get in my way.

I find articles that don't meet the MOS and try to put them that way. But then they get undone, and undone again, even after I show people that the way the MOS has it is the way it should be written. Every time I unknowingly change something against the MOS, someone puts their hand down on me and rebukes me for it, so then I correct my edit to meet that standard. So then why should I not do the same with other articles?

I find articles that have redundancies in them, such as "inventing the first..." (invention already implies "first") and remove them.

I find articles with punctuation and other simple errors and remove those.

But then people like flighttime and home lander get in my way. Those were not unconstructive edits I gave, as the IP, to flighttime. They were a question that I was asking flighttime about why he falsely accused my edit at another article of being "vandalism," even though it was clearly a good-faith edit. I have never intentionally vandalized articles, and never will. But then people get in the way of my edits anyway and call them "vandalism."

And then help me understand this. I've always been told that I should not edit other people's writings on talk pages, because refactoring their writing on talk pages is stepping on their toes, as it is not in articles proper. But then along comes home lander and wrecks the question I'm asking flighttime over and over again. If I'm not supposed to correct other people's comments in talk pages, then what give him and other so-called "editors" here the supposed right to do that to MY writings on other pages? Why is it "okay" for flighttime to tell me that my MOS-based formatting is "vandalism" even though it clearly is not? And why should I not be allowed to even ask him why he thinks my good-faith edit is "vandalism" when it sure as hell is not, by his buddy-buddy home lander coming in and reverting (refactoring) my writings there, which is a no-no?

Not only that, but then when I try to ask ebyabe here (because right now I can't write on his page) if he's fine with me starting this account and would be fine with me editing with it, here's home ruiner again, coming to empty my talk page! That is not allowed! Why is that "okay" for him to do that if I'm not allowed to do it?

I'd be happy to edit with a user name, and have that as one that isn't offensive to you people, but I need help keeping these people out of my way, please, and the answers to my above questions of why there are these double-standards here.

PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak, see User:Not In Your Shoes. Home Lander (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's the account I used to try to erase his page because he wrongfully erased mine here, and kept erasing my question to flighttime, when he has no right to. But I would not do that if he wouldn't do it to me. We wouldn't have any of this crap if these "editors" wouldn't give it. So I'd be happy to have you either leave this account blocked and user name unchanged, while letting me edit as Not In Your Shoes, or changing the name here and blocking that one. Actually, I like that name. How about we do that? See, he clearly thinks I'm "in the wrong" for erasing his page, while making no apology for erasing mine, when all I was doing is asking ebyabe this question up here. Is that not wrong?

Manu-signed by PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Girl. Okay, I think I see what is happening here. This seems to be an example. You make an edit that you feel is constructive. Someone gets in your way by undoing your edit. You put it back, and on and on. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a constructive edit because the MOS says to use that format ("better known by the stage name [[________]]"), and also because a better, more professional encyclopedia should have consistency between similar articles. Why should there be any enforcement that one says "known professionally as..." and the other says "better known by his/her stage name [[_________]]," instead of all of them just saying the same thing--especially as the MOS words it (which is more informative, too, because of the link to the stage name article)?

PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girl. Okay, I think we're making good progress. Yes, your edit may have been best. Who knows? Not me for sure. Not you for sure. Not them for sure. So, we have a procedure at Wikipedia. If you follow it, you can make years of great edits. It is called WP:BRD. You make an edit. Someone disagrees and reverts. (Maybe wrongly, maybe rightly.) You do not revert back. You go to the talk page and start a thread. The reverter must show up and discuss. Others will agree with you or the reverter. The article ends up the way most of us think is right. Of course, if we just revert back and forth forever, Wikipedia would not function, so we have BRD. It is great.

As for blanking talk pages, let's not get into that now. Let's solve the first problem first, and then maybe all will be well and we can get back to editing.

So, if unblocked, would you promise to use one account and no IPs and follow BRD? I will personally be here to help you if you are treated unfairly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, solve one problem at a time (if they're not emergencies). That makes things more manageable. I'll follow up with you later about the unfair reporting of one editor for doing what the other was doing first. Okay, I can agree to that. Thank you for your willingness to help me--that I can call upon you when I get unfair treatment again. But will you spread the word to ALL others involved with this, so that they don't keep trampling on me? And can I call upon your help for dispute resolution any time I see someone in talk not wanting to follow MOS, or when we have another dispute?

Also, isn't the MOS wikipedia's best way of doing something? That's not just me saying it's the way to do it, so when it's MOS, it is the best, according to wikipedia.

PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, To editors Ebyabe and Home Lander:, this user says they are willing to observe BRD. Please be kind and understanding.

Girl, if someone does not follow MOS when making an edit, then you may revert that person. Then they have to use the talk page to convince us why their edit is okay. It is all about who made the first new edit to a stable article. That person who made that edit can be reverted. That may be you. That may be someone else. That is important.

Summary (very important): Editor1 mades an edit. Editor2 reverts. Editor1 should not put back the edit. Trouble usually comes to that Editor1. Editor1 should use the talk page to convince the community.

Girl, you need a good username. Do you really want Canihavethisone? It is not too late to choose another one. :) Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: The trouble of course is, there already is an existing account. See here for further details. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 06:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ebyabe. See, that's why I asked how deep this goes. In this case, back to March 2016 with that SPI and who knows with the mess of the related ones shown at User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD".

@Ebyabe:, if that's your point here, then why did you say to me in home lander's page that I should just get an account, as if that would solve it for you?

Girl, forget it. You wasted my time. If you are here thinking you are helping Wikipedia, you are not. You are hurting the project you love, and wasting the time of volunteers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well see, user:Anna Frodesiak, that's just it. It's only edits like that that started this whole mess in the first place. Those are the same kinds of helpful edits--fixing the articles to MOS standards, etc.--that I'm telling you about here. Only some people refused to be convinced that the MOS has things worded that way, and rather enforced that similar articles be INconsistent. So yes, that IS helping wikipedia. This whole thing got that way because I wasn't as willing to BRD then. But I am now.

But what about when people want to revert your edit instead of taking it seriously, but then they refuse to take responsibility for their reversion by being willing to discuss it in the talk page too? Why should they get to revert without also being obligated to discuss in the talk page? And if they think they can revert without being willing enough to own up to it by discussing it, then shouldn't they just accept the new edit (especially if it's a MOS one and I show them so)? Why should they get the last edit with their non-MOS reversion if they're not even willing to discuss it?

PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your extensive history of socking, there is only one way forward for you: Wait six months without socking the ask for an unblock saying you understand the problem and that things will be fine in the future. That is called the WP:STANDARD OFFER and I could never get support for an immediate unblock.

If you really want to help Wikipedia, do this. If you cannot wait six months, and want to help Wikipedia by continuing while blocked, you will get reverted again and again, and waste the communities time. This will be unhelpful, unwanted, and will be hurting Wikipedia. Please do not say that the edits you make are helpful now. They are not, so please do not try to tell us or yourself that you are doing good here. You are hurting the project. That is not the kind of person you want to be, right? So, what will you do? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak:, why do the edits "hurt" wikipedia, according to you, even though they would be making the same corrections as someone whom you guys don't suspect is a sockpuppet would make if they were conscious enough of the rules to make them--especially since one of the sockpuppet-suspecting rules even says that constructive edits made by [a suspected] sock puppet can be allowed to stand (which obviously includes fitting articles to the MOS, and which obviously means the edits are good for, don't hurt, the project)?

Also, Anna, why should I be held so one-sidedly accountable for this mess when so much of it was caused by these very other people by their refusal to accept the MOS standards before I was ever blocked for making those edits in the first place?

Also, Anna, why is it supposedly "okay" for some editors to refactor others' comments from each other's pages and article talk pages, even though they are not vulgar or otherwise offensive (such as just asking why he could claim an MOS-conforming edit was supposedly "vandalism" even though it is not) even though whenever I did it without being blocked, someone tried to make sure I knew that was against the rules? Why shouldn't home lander and flighttime and numerous others who remove others' comments from each other's pages be held that same amount accountable? PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care if the edits are good. Because you are blocked, we revert, block the account, and that is a waste of community resources. That is how it hurts. You already wasted half an hour of my time. I don't care about talk pages, refactoring, or MOS.

What you are doing is indefensible. Don't you know that? Don't delude yourself by thinking you are here helping. You've cost the project countless hours with your help.

The only way forward for you is to wait six months, period. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak:, you wouldn't say that my edits were "hurting" the project if they had been done while I wasn't presumably blocked, right? And don't you remember that the rules about blocking specifically state that you do not HAVE to revert good edits just because they were made by a blocked or presumably blocked editor, right? From WP:BLOCK: "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)...". Remember that? So if you choose to keep reverting a perceived blocked editor, that is just you and the others wasting your own time. So you can see that those edits do not truly "hurt" the wikipedia, right? In this kind of scene, only your choice to revert helpful changes wastes your time and hurts the project because it wastes your time because you keep doing something that even WP:BLOCK says you do NOT have to do! Can you see that?

My point is also that I should never have been blocked in the first place, because--and this is where you should care about MOS because the powers that be care for it, because if they didn't then they wouldn't have written it--I was wrongfully blocked while trying to put articles into MOS format. Why should I be falsely accused of supposed "disruptive editing," and then wrongfully BLOCKED, for putting articles into a format that your bosses here at the wiki WANT them to be in? You see the problem there? So this is why I should not have to wait half a year to correct more articles. Your and other admins' and other editors' time would not have been wasted if they had not felt the supposed "need" to fight against me for doing to articles as wikipedia wants us to do, right? Can you see that too?

What about when someone even already tried to discuss that MOS-based or other change that shouldn't be controversial on the article's talk page and the vandal who reverts that constructive edit refuses to discuss there? Why should the vandal's action be allowed to stay in that case, with the good editor "given the shaft" on that because the vandal refuses to discuss? And how long should an editor have to wait before they can reimprove the article to match the MOS standard, or some other equally noncontroversial, constructive edit?

PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion about this is going to happen. You must walk away from Wikipedia completely for six months then request an unblock. That is the only way you will be welcome here, be permitted to edit, and able to make edits that will not be reverted. I know that is what you want. Will you do it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Anna Frodesiak: are you watching this page, or should I ping you every time I send a new reply?)

Why, Anna, is it "okay" for ebyabe to request, at home lander's page, that I get an account, only to just try to deny me (through one of you admnins) once I do get one?

Also, you see, Anna, it's this lack from you and other admins to discuss matters to their completion that makes people unmotivated to just wait around for half a year; that makes them want to keep fighting with the system, because you won't accept--or even finish discussing--the possibility that that editor was treated wrongfully. Why should we not finish discussing it until we reach the REAL end (not an artificial end by one of you prematurely saying "this is over now" even before it really is)? Why should I be falsely accused of "not getting it" when the whole point is to discuss how I was wrongfully treated while improving articles before starting to be blocked? Why shouldn't we have a sort of due process (as they say in the USA legal system, for example--and I know this is not the government, so don't give me the "Wikipedia is not the government") by finishing discussing the real possibility that I was blocked wrongfully from the very beginning? Can you see that if you super-block me for just trying to finish a discussion, the frustration generated by that unfair treatment might make me even more unwilling to stop fighting, but if you discuss this with me until the natural end, I would be more apt to cooperate? So why should we not do it that way?

PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading the above. I've been hearing this line for a decade from so many people, : "I was blocked unfairly to begin with, so I socked. I should be unblocked now? I want to make good edits."

1. Even if I agree you were unfairly blocked (don't know, don't care), the community will never accept an unblock before six months from now. Don't waste your time by asking. It won't happen. Period.

2. If you continue to sock, you will be a de facto net-negative. Don't delude yourself by thinking you would be helping Wikipedia. If you wait six months, you may be unblocked. A happy future awaits you. Those are the two possibilities you face. The third possibility of argue, win argument, get unblocked now, is not a possibility. Understand that. If you still argue, your talk page access will be revoked.

3. It is time to stop trying to discuss an early unblock. It is time for you to make a mature choice: You can join the community in six months...or....you can sock and waste your time and hurt Wikipedia. You face a life choice of success or failure. You pick. Be mature. Be smart. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To assist, you must walk away from Wikipedia completely until Christmas this year. Can you do that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to further assist, you should make the request under your original account, User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", not this or any other of the numerous socks. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebyabe:, then why did you act on home lander's page like "If he would only get an account..." like that's all you wanted me to do? PoopingGirlOnTheToilet (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebyabe:: Why are you two-faced on this matter ("If only he'd get an account..." but then later, when I do get one... "Oh, no, he shouldn't be writing now, because he's a blocked editor")?