User talk:Tubbyty

This is also the definition used in many books such as Racial and Ethical Relations (Feagin and Feagin) but they also discuss geographical influences

March 2017

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ann Coulter. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It seems I have been blocked for adding references- WITH CITATIONS. This must be fixed immediately, or a I will never contribute to wikipedia again.

No, that is incorrect. That's not why you were blocked. You have been blocked for edit warring and editing against the consensus established on the article talk page. If you want to file an unblock request, follow the instructions in the block notice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"editing against the consensus." How very Stalin of you. Everything I added was factual, and I stand behind it. Regardless of what you and the protector... I mean consensus, says.

Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy that describes how Wikipedia editors make decisions about article content. If you think that this widely accepted policy that helps make Wikipedia a top ten website worldwide is Stalinist, then you have two choices: either go about getting the policy changed, or go edit another website. You can't violate the policy if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like this while edit-warring lead to blocks [1], especially after a recent RfC on the subject. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Everything I inserted was backed up by a reference. Everything I deleted had no reference. Is Wikipedia now censoring unfavorable facts, even if accompanied by a reference?

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the reason you were blocked: you were edit warring. Read WP:EW before making another request - you need to address the guidelines given there in any such request. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:52, 19 November 2020 (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 is a short block. Please do read up on WP:EW - I get that you don't agree with the content of the article, and even with the sourcing - but you need to convince other people that you are right, simply trying to force your changes through will only lead to another, longer block. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what, specifically, got me banned? Deleting unsourced statements, adding sourced statements, or both? If I don’t delete anything, but add the fact he had multiple COVID negative tests both before and after arrival, with sources, is that ok? Or are facts banned without “consensus”? Tubbyty (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit-warring, as has been explained to you several times now. Believing you're right isn't an exemption. Please use the talkpage to make your case rather than trying to revert until you've had your way. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the EW page. I did not revert three times in 24 hours, as best I can tell. Again, what, SPECIFICALLY, did I do wrong?

As soon as I am unblocked by the secretariat I am going to add the fact he tested negative after arrival (with sources, again). Will that be a problem? Tubbyty (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You will be blocked immediately for resuming edit-warring after explicit warning and a block. Go to the talkpage and make your case there. You were blocked for edit-warring, not 3RR. Read it all again - declaring an intention to edit-war and trying to game 3RR are grounds for immediate blocking, the next time at much greater length. . Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can’t tell me what I did wrong. Rather, only if I do it again, even if 100% factual, you will ban me even longer.

You ought to be ashamed, and immediately move to China. I am sorry you got picked on as a kid, but you clearly deserve it. Do your worst insecure boy. Tubbyty (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked for personal attacks, but the block length remains the same. As warned above, anything other than a visit to the talkpage and respectful discussion will be grounds for an extended block after this one expires. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]