User talk:Pyromilke

April 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know which edit you're referring to.Pyromilke (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of them, but specifically the edit to Talk:Joe Biden[. Don't solicit defamation anywhere on Wikipedia.. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden has said some very racist things. And why would defamation of Biden not be allowed, but defamation of Trump is?Pyromilke (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A, read wp:legal B, We go with what RS say, now if you have any RS saying "this statement by Biden was racist" sure we might be able to include it. But we do not engage in tit for tat edits. RS of characterised many of Trumps statements as racist or racist dog whistles. So this is why we allow it, because RS say it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, Biden has said/done more racist things than Trump, Biden wrote a crime bill that targeted black Americans. You can just admit you're a hypocrite and move on but don't delete talk page suggestions without trying to have a conversation about why it should or should not be added, it's against talk page rules.Pyromilke (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:npa, and learn to indent.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think learning rules about not deleting other people's talk page comments are more important

As is not calling other users hypocrites (even if you think they are).Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As in deleting other people'c comments without discussing them on said talk page

Talkpages aren't fora in which you may advance broad arguments or complaints - they are a place to make specific suggestions for article improvements based on mainstream sourcing. Posts that do not adhere to that requirement may be removed. See WP:NOTFORUM. The same post would be removed at Talk:Donald Trump on the same grounds - it's unsourced, unactionable and a waste of volunteer time. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:indent And yes it is OK to remove talk pages posts if they are disruptive. Yours can be seen as that as it seemed to be just trying to make a point (read wp:point), reinforced by your statements here that this seems to be all related to your desire to see claims of racism removed from the Trump article. Not helped by your first edit here [[1]], which is a violation of wp:soap. So yes I can see why they saw your post here [[2]] as disruptive. I would not have called it trolling, and personally would not have removed it, but I can see why they did.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey brother just wanted to say thank you for standing up for what’s right. Saw you correct some idiot on calling Trump racist on Trump’s talk page and decided to pitch in. I added the last paragraph(sorry if they took it down). But yeah, just wanted to encourage you cause I’m done with the BS on this website and you clearly are too. God Bless, keep fighting.

Notices

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:2021 Haiti earthquake—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying they're two genders is a fact, and facts aren't against wikipedia's rules so I see no reason for this. Pyromilke (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that will get you a ban, that is a fact. I suggest you drop the wp:nothere attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyromilke! This isn't a sanction or a punishment in any way. It's just a notice for the future that standards are high for this topic area. I'll echo the notice's language: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven I don't see how saying facts will get me banned

@Firefangledfeathers ah ok, I still don't it's necessary since I did nothing wrong

First of, not everyone agrees with your "fact" so it might be seen as pushing wp:or or violating wp:not, and (maybe) a violation of wp:npov. Secondly, we have rules about wp:civility that this attitude (if used in certain way) might violate MOS:GNL(and maybe wp:soap). Lastly I have seen people banned for just this attitude, arguing the toss about what pronouns they can use. So if you do not change your attitude over this it is a hill you will die on.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IN fact reading your latest edits you really really need to read wp:or Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly are you referring to? Pyromilke (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of edits to talk pages calling for articles to be deleted (please read wp:afd for how to actually do that correctly) based upon your assertion it's not a real thing, despite all of the articles being well sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:03, 16 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think getting into one argument that many other people got into is grounds for a block. If this was the logic that nearly every wikipedia user should be blocked. If you read my edit history you'd see I try my best to make pages good, such as fixing grammar/spelling, and adding hyperlinks. Pyromilke (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed your edits and agree with the block. Since you do not understand what you did wrong, if unblocked you would just continue being disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2021 (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.

.

I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't request to edit the article, I complained about the same thing a lot of other people were complaining about, did you block them too? Pyromilke (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than one article, it is more than one issue. Sees all the talk page warnings and alerts above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was from months ago, I didn't use wikipedia for a while after that. Pyromilke (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both August and September were not "months ago".Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything in August and this entire thing is about what I just did yesterday. So what are you talking about? Pyromilke (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did this [[3]] on 18 August 2021, which is pure wp:vandalism. Then we have this [[4]] (an example of wp:forum). Along with a raft of other POV pushing talk page contrition over the last month or so.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the decline was "you do not get what you did wrong".Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wow you're petty. Pyromilke (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why, for pointing out what you said was wrong? I think I am done here. Above I warned you that you were heading for a block if you did not change your ways. I have tried to explain to you what you did wrong, and you have resorted to dishonesty (sorry I am going to stop AGF now with your above response, if it was a mistake you would have said so) by claiming you did nothing wrong in August. I think the block is valid and I think you are a wp:pov pusher who is here to wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One last piece of advice, keep up with the attitude and you will lose talk page access too. I suggest less "I am wronged" and more "I am humbled".Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you go outside and touch grass, I never thought wikipedia neckbeards were real until I clicked on your page Pyromilke (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]