User talk:Power2the1

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page James Augustine Healy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Seaphoto^Talk 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Patrick Francis Healy. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Donald Duck (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to One-drop rule, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:59, 14 May 2010 (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).

Power2the1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure what I did to receive a block, can I have the words I used that constitute vandalism? I'd like to be unblocked. I did not realize I was vandalizing anything until today.

Decline reason:

I would imagine some people wouldn't be happy with your substitution of "African-American" with "mulatto" in those articles. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (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.

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).

Power2the1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for the reply. The reason why I did this was becasue the person(s) that I edited were mixed with both white/European and black/African backgrounds. This, by definition, constitutes a mulatto person, and not an African-American. So basically that is why I changed the wording from 'African American' to 'mulatto' to more accurately define the racial background of the person. If you, or any other mods reviewing this look up the word 'mulatto', you will see that what I changed was an accurate definition of my changes. I am mulatto myself, so it's something I thought would be an accurate thing to change, but honestly had no idea it constituted vandalism. Let me know what you think.

Decline reason:

First, is the "mix" referenced appropriately? Second, Africans are often mixed to begin with. Third, many people self-identify as "African American", no matter their background: it's not a genetic term, it's a personal term - you can't remove it from them and it's highly offensive the way you're using it. Remember: no matter what colour you are, you also came from Africa via many mixes yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 31 July 2010 (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.

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).

Power2the1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, thanks for the reply. Yes, the mix is referenced appropriately (European and African). Until 1930, the census had a 'mulatto' category, and it would have fitted these individuals correctly, as they would not have marked 'white' or 'black' at that time. What someone identifies with is fine, but one must take into account their actual race/ethnicity. (i.e. a white guy can act like and black person, and vice versa, but that doesn't make then the other race). How am I using the word 'African American' offensively? I have not put anything in a negative light, only seeking to correct misinterpretations of mulatto individuals. Seeing other mulatto persons 'one drop ruled' is incorrect, both biologically and scientifically. This is what I want to change and make it more accurate. I do not understand how this is a bad thing and why I was banned. I did nothing wrong here.

Decline reason:

You can't apply a potentially offensive term (see Mulatto#United States) to biographies of living people unless you provide references to reliable sources that they self-identify or are universally described by reliable sources as "mulattos". See WP:BLP. Sandstein 12:43, 31 July 2010 (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.

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).

Power2the1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alright, so the term 'mulatto' can sometimes be offensive to certain people. Yet, to others, its perfectly acceptable when speaking of someone that has both European and African blood. This controversy seems to be the reason I was blocked in the first place because some might find the term offensive. I certainly do not find the term offensive at all and, in reality, no other term would accurately define a black/white person that mulatto (you see, using broad, undefined, generic terms like 'biracial', 'mixed', etc... could mean any race, any cultural background, and thus is not specific to the person being described). Still, is there any reason why my block should still stand assuming I do not use the word 'mulatto' do describe people of both black and white ancestry?

Decline reason:

You still refuse to listen to opinions other than yours and show no reason to believe that you will not continue to do the same thing going forward. We do not unblock making assumptions that you will stop your disruptive actions. If you continue to post such unblock requests your talk page access will be revoked, read the policies highlighted above and also the guide to appealing blocks before you post any more unblock requests (your final one).—SpacemanSpiff 06:57, 10 August 2010 (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.

{{unblock|I said in my last reply that I would not use the term 'mulatto' for this site, which I will abide by, but I am being honest when I said that I did not agree with that. I could spam creating other accounts if I had some agenda here, but that is not the case at all. I'll abide by whatever rules there are. And yes, I did listen to other opinions, but I do not agree with them. Therefore, according to the unblock rule: "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead." I will not use the word "mulatto" as I have said.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As you have agreed to abide to the expectations of Wikipedia, showing that you both understand the reason and will not do it again

Request handled by: -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Howdy. I'm afraid that isn't quite how unblock request acceptance works. You can't accept your own request (well, unless you're an administrator, and even then you're never supposed to), and posting the confirmation message does not in of itself actually unblock anyone. The weird formatting suggests you probably posted this by mistake though, so please realize I'm not trying to accuse you. You can safely disregard what I've said here if this was just a mistaken copy-and-paste. - Vianello (Talk) 17:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. Yes, I messed up when I meant to submit my last post with the code copy/paste. Currently I am waiting to see if my account will be unblocked and able to edit pages on the site. Again, I was unaware that some found that word, 'mulatto', offensive, but I will not use it in future edits if it's that big of an issue. Note that I am mulatto myself, and sites such as Mulatto.org are and thriving by people who do not find the word offensive at all. Anyway, that all I have to say really. Just waiting to be my block undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power2the1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 August 2010