User talk:PozMyNegHole

July 2010

Thank you for your contribution to R. Budd Dwyer, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. -- Valerius Myotis (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, PozMyNegHole, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may offend other editors. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Active Banana (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Sagging (fashion). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sagging. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion _(talk) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute 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 trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion _(talk) 21:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for the username and a willingness to edit-war over unsourced changes to articles, as well as earlier vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 21:55, 28 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Accept edit war was unjustified. However, my username is a reflection of my personal lifestyle choices which are not up to Wikipedia to judge. Your attempt to block me on that basis is clearly prejudiced, if not outright homophobic.

Decline reason:

That line of reasoning conveniently leaves out the fact that we had no way of knowing if you are a homosexual male or a woman who enjoys the "back door" or just some ignorant teenager who thinks it's a funny name. Bottom line is it is innapropriate regardless of your sexual orientation. This is an encyclopedia, not a dating site. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 28 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.

A name referring to anal sex and an editing history of pursuing that topic in inappropriate or unsourced edits does not indicate an interest in improving the encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Marburgh (talk · contribs) and RawTop (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]