User talk:Unique Ubiquitous

LGBT unfriendly ranking

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly for citing your source in the articles Brigham Young University, Grove City College, and Wheaton College (Illinois). Unfortunately, the one source you added did it itself appear to have sufficient information to determine if the "LGBT unfriendly" list meets the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. The Princeton Review is somewhat well-known, but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means: not only is there no information of TPR's methodology, but does not even list criteria or any description of why a school was listed or anything else LBGT-related. Without this information, it gives the appearance to undue weight being given to a ranking with no known foundation. This particlar ranking list seems particularly controversial, compared to more general college rankings, because it claims colleges to be "unfriendly" to a group of people who it may be highly controversial, or even unlawful in some circumstances, to be explicitly "unfriendly" to. Since it's making a claim about a controversial issue, it needs specific verifiable claims from multiple reliable sources, or at least verifiable, reliable sources to establish how TPR, if it normally respected, arrived at such a conclusion. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Thanks again for your help. --Closeapple (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for telling me that you reverted my edits and on taking the time to explain, but, none of what you stated is true.

"Unfortunately, the one source you added did it itself appear to have sufficient information to determine if the "LGBT unfriendly" list meets the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline." -Bullshit

"The Princeton Review is somewhat well-known, but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means: not only is there no information of TPR's methodology, but does not even list criteria or any description of why a school was listed or anything else LBGT-related. Without this information, it gives the appearance to undue weight being given to a ranking with no known foundation. This particlar ranking list seems particularly controversial, compared to more general college rankings, because it claims colleges to be "unfriendly" to a group of people who it may be highly controversial, or even unlawful in some circumstances, to be explicitly "unfriendly" to. Since it's making a claim about a controversial issue," -meaningless ramblings

"but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means:" -Verifiability not truth

"it needs specific verifiable claims from multiple reliable sources" -Bullshit, you want multiple sources to back up that the PR stated X when I already gave the PRIMARY source?

Sorry, I'm no fool, I reinstated two of my edits, the third was already re-added by an admin. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for all this

Sorry for the somewhat ugly tone of the discussion, UU- not a great example IMO of a civil and productive discussion at Wikipedia. We try... Staecker (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I should have taken more time to think of a name, Waddling Through Fire would have been better, I hope you get it. There were many indications that a conversation with BB would not go well, I'm sure there are many editors, like yourself, that I could have a productive dialogue with, even if we were in disagreement. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to reboot the discussion at Talk:Brigham Young University#Princeton Review LGBT ranking, hopefully without the personal opinions and bickering. Staecker (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is being discussed

Hello Unique Ubiquitous. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Request for issuance of discretionary sanctions. It has been proposed that you be notified about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. I can imagine two ways you might respond:

I already know about the restrictions, you don't have to notify me, or
I object to what people are saying about my edits, and here's why my edits were reasonable.

If you want to respond, you can leave your answer on my talk page. If you make no answer, it seems probable that you will be officially notified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Per your statement that you are already aware of the ARBPIA sanctions. A discussion about this happened at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for issuance of discretionary sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. It looks like you violated WP:1RR at Mahmoud Abbas on July 11. There may still be time for you to self-revert to avoid sanctions. Activism1234 added the material twice but his first edit does not count as a revert. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated it would be a BLP infraction to include contentious information that is not sourced to at least 2 RS. Neither source provided is anywhere near a RS and BLP unquestionably overrides 1RR, but I'm sure you know this. Also I have never reported a DUCK at SPI, how do I do it, just post the single account and the reasons it is an obvious sock? Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's a BLP violation, consider opening a thread at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask if MEMRI is a proper source for that information. You may also consider doing your own research to see if you can find out what Abbas has said on those topics, using your own better-quality sources. If you want to make a filing at SPI, you will have to specify who you think they are a sock of. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the archives for MEMRI - this one made me laugh - the two people ranting on about how reliable MEMRI is are User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and User:Tundrabuggy. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think statements like "MEMRI is a reliable source for claims made by MEMRI, not for statements of fact.", "Memri is indeed a partisan source... it is also a notable source. As such it is reliable as self-published source for statements as to Memri's opinion. However, WP:BLP limits using self-published sources in articles about living people" "Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both. That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation." - followed by "Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts." - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - as Eleland points out above, MEMRI has just the opposite reputation." at least 5 different editors - not including me, seriously question MEMRI as a RS, this easy makes it non reliable, especially for BLP. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Passionless (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

How could I possibly sock with an account that hasn't editted in over a year? As I openly stated a few edits ago on EdJohnston's page I have had several accounts in the past purely to keep under the radar from those editors who still have vendetas against me. I have not used this account in conjuction with other accounts or to break any policies. As you of course know, this is the only account I use. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If your previous account(s) is blocked, that means that you, the person, are blocked from this project. Period. Otherwise, it's evading a valid block. "Keeping under the radar" is also not a valid reasoning for an alternate account - indeed, it's exactly the reasons against them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (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 do hope people realize the editor who told Tim to block me also just re-added a BLP violation I had removed from Mahmoud Abbas. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What so I'm suppose to fly my flag and be continually harrassed by editors who have literally thousands of accounts who post racist material to my user page! I have never abusively used multiple accounts, my edits do not break any policies, there is no reason for me to be blocked. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please state a reason for me being blocked, and no I won't take you are blocked because you are blocked as a reason. I have only used a single account at a time for ~ a year. I do not break any policies in my editing. I realize my recent edits do not look the most constructive as I have run into several poor editors and have been too lazy to be productive elsewehere - but my editing generally is productive, I have had numerous administators praise my editing before, I've had four separate accounts get ITNs, I am sure that if asked, those admins who knew me previously, even those who I was certainly not pals with - though no ill feelings remain - such as HJ Mitchell were asked they would allow me to edit again, well on the condition that I be nice, heck I even promised myself to stay away from all admin boards (except SPI), as using those was what led up to my block. So again, is there any reason why I could not be unblocked? Can I not come back and actually build up a respectable account once again rather than being forced to use throw away accounts where I need not care about my editing? I don't think admins realize how having a permanent account makes people better editors, it gives them something to lose, but what do I have to lose if I decided to edit poorly, nothing, I will be found out eventually and blocked regardless of whether I edit well or poorly if I keep an account for more than a month. Can we discuss conditions for my return? (A new, non-tagged account is a must for me) Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter that you've "only used a single account at a time for [about] a year". Your previous account was blocked for socking, and as long as that account is blocked, you are not allowed to have any other Wikipedia accounts - period. Having any Wikipeida accounts while your original account is blocked is block evasion. If you wish to return to editing, you either need to request unblock as Passionless (talk · contribs), or to arrange for a WP:CLEANSTART, and in either case you must operate under a single account (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 18 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please state a reason for me being blocked, and no I won't take you are blocked because you are blocked as a reason. I have only used a single account at a time for ~ a year. I do not break any policies in my editing. I realize my recent edits do not look the most constructive as I have run into several poor editors and have been too lazy to be productive elsewehere - but my editing generally is productive, I have had numerous administators praise my editing before, I've had four separate accounts get ITNs, I am sure that if asked, those admins who knew me previously, even those who I was certainly not pals with - though no ill feelings remain - such as HJ Mitchell were asked they would allow me to edit again, well on the condition that I be nice, heck I even promised myself to stay away from all admin boards (except SPI), as using those was what led up to my block. So again, is there any reason why I could not be unblocked? Can I not come back and actually build up a respectable account once again rather than being forced to use throw away accounts where I need not care about my editing? I don't think admins realize how having a permanent account makes people better editors, it gives them something to lose, but what do I have to lose if I decided to edit poorly, nothing, I will be found out eventually and blocked regardless of whether I edit well or poorly if I keep an account for more than a month. Can we discuss conditions for my return? (A new, non-tagged account is a must for me) Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to the reasons already given for not unblocking, you are now threatening to continue to use sockpuppet accounts and edit more disruptively than you would if unblocked. I doubt that any administrator would consider unblocking you in response to such an attempt at blackmail. Naturally, your talk page access will be removed, as you have been abusing unblock requests. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2012 (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.

Ugh, I am blocked so can someone just copy paste this to my old account, Bushranger says it's necessary bureaucracy.