User talk:Walterblue222
Welcome Walterblue222!
I'm Pdebee, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Civility at Talk:Feminism
Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and decisions on Wikipedia are made primarily by consensus. When there are disagreements about the content of a Wikipedia article, this is resolved by discussing it on the talk page of the article. So, when your edit to the first sentence of the article was reverted, raising a discussion at Talk:Feminism afterward as you did was the right thing to do.
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is civility. Part of this is assuming good faith, and discussing calmly with other editors. Quoting the guideline: Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably. Titling your discussion at Talk:Feminism "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" looks combative, or that you might be assuming deception on the part of other editors. This would be a failure to assume good faith. Rather than worry about how the content of the article that you disapprove of got that way, why not simply concentrate on how to improve it?
In fact, much of your post is doing exactly that, where you are arguing your points, questioning existing wording, and providing dictionary definitions. That's the right approach. On the other hand, instead of abandoning the use of the term deceptive in the section title, you've doubled down on it several times since. That could be seen as WP:UNCIVIL or an accusation by some, so please don't continue that approach. Instead, continue laying out your arguments and trying to gain the support of other editors who agree with you, as you have been. Wikipedia:Consensus provides a roadmap on how to do this.
Don't hesitate to reply below (see WP:THREAD for proper protocol), and please {{ping}} me or use template {{reply}} to get my attention. If you ever want to ask a question on a new topic, feel free to add a section on my Talk page. You can also ask your question in a new section below, adding the token {{Help me}} somewhere in your message, and an experienced editor will be along to answer your question. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was already informed that raising a discussion at Talk:Feminism after my edit was reverted was the right thing to do, I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to reiterate this.
- You claim that "instead of abandoning the use of the term deceptive in the section title, you've doubled down on it several times since." This is simply not true; I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since". The only time I used the term "deceptive" was after explaining my position, saying that "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete".
- Mathglot, you are claiming that my conduct "could be seen as WP:UNCIVIL or an accusation by some", but this is predicated on the false claim that I "doubled down on it several times since." I don't appreciate being accused of incivility, particularly when the basis of this accusation is false. Can any other more experienced editor help me deal with this? Walterblue222 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't an appropriate use of the help me template and you should not be asking other editors to engage in your dispute. If you need more opinions please see WP:DRN. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Praxidicae, I guess? I asked for assistance because Mathglot told me to... "You can also ask your question in a new section below, adding the token
{{Help me}}somewhere in your message, and an experienced editor will be along to answer your question." Not sure how I was supposed to know that this wasn't an appropriate usage, when told to do so... Walterblue222 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)- The thing regarding
{{Help me}}was intended to be about questions on new topics; sorry if I was not clear about that. - Regarding your comments about what you did or didn't say, the revision history preserves earlier versions:
- 00:25, Jan 21:
- "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" (section title)
- "...and it seems manipulative and deceitful..."
- 01:25, 21 Jan: "Manipulative and deceitful is my opinion, you're correct."
- 03:15, 21 Jan
- "how can this be seen as anything BUT deception?"
- "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete."
- 01:32, 22 Jan: "My personal opinion is that the definition in the first sentence is misleading and deceitful."
- 00:25, Jan 21:
- I wouldn't have bothered mentioning any of this, but for your astonishing: This is simply not true; I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since". Sure seems like doubling down to me, over and over. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry but you're a liar. I said "you claim that "instead of abandoning the use of the term deceptive in the section title, you've doubled down on it several times since." This is simply not true; I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since". The only time I used the term "deceptive" was after explaining my position, saying that "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete".
- None of the examples you provided support your claim.
- "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" - okay, that's 1 use of the term "deceptive".
- Next: "...and it seems manipulative an deceitful" well, that's not another use of the term "deceptive".
- Next: "Manipulative and deceitful is my opinion, you're correct" hmm again, no use of the term "deceptive".
- Next, "how can this be seen as anything BUT deception?" still, technically not the term "deceptive", but I guess I can see your point of view if my glasses are off and I squint a bit.
- "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete." Whoo! Our first example of using the term "deceptive", other than the title.
- Next: "My personal opinion is that the definition in the first sentence is misleading and deceitful" hmm, again, no use of the term "deceptive".
- I don't know if you have trouble counting, dyslexia or some other problem processing information, but you've provided no information to counter the claim that "I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since"."
- All in all, I used the word "deceptive" a grand total of 2 times, and one of those times was when I was explaining why I used that term. So, when you claim that it "Sure seems like doubling down to me, over and over.", well, that's just not true.
- In conclusion, I would appreciate if you refrain from perpetuating falsehoods regarding me in the future, no matter how "astonishing" you may find the truth to be. Walterblue222 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The thing regarding
- Thanks Praxidicae, I guess? I asked for assistance because Mathglot told me to... "You can also ask your question in a new section below, adding the token
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think you mean, "There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you started." I don't appreciate your repeated personal attacks, demeaning attitude, unjustified reversions, and blatant lies about me and my motivations, even after I took the time to explain that your assumptions were not true.
- Your behavior is inappropriate, deceptive, and manipulative, and you seem like a bully, not someone here to contribute or collaborate but rather here to disrespect others who are trying to contribute, and disrupt their (our) contributions and edits. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your behavior is inappropriate, deceptive, and manipulative, disrespectful of others who are trying to contribute, and disrupting of others' contributions and edits. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
Walterblue222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is not a "sock puppet" account. I am not evading any block or ban, or violating Wikipedia policy. I do not own or use multiple accounts, for any reason, legitimate or not. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
Walterblue222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What do you mean, "abuse of multiple accounts"? I only have one account. I do not own or use any other account. Please remove this unjustified block. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please see ANI Walterblue222 - NOTHERE, TEND, and CIVIL issues.
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. You will need to deal with all the issues associated with all of your accounts. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
Walterblue222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I read that, and I responded to it and the false accusations of the user initiating the block proposal. Why am I blocked? I have one account and one account only. This is my original account. I do not own or use any other account. Please remove this block. Walterblue222 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The checkuser evidence is pretty conclusive, close to a 100% correlation. That, combined with the behavioural similarities between your accounts, is more than enough to convince me that unblocking you would be a very bad idea. Yunshui 雲水 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
Walterblue222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"combined with the behavioural similarities between your accounts"? I only have one account. I've only ever had one account. This is my first and only account, there is no account to compare "behavioural similarities" with. I shouldn't be made to "convince" anyone to unblock me, seeing as this block is unjustified. Meanwhile, the user suggesting this block, who has broken nearly every wiki rule and guideline I've come across, has not received any penalty (as far as I can say) for repeated personal attacks and false accusations against me. How is this justified? Why am I being blocked? I've tried to follow every suggestion and guideline while using wikipedia, and this block is unjustified and based on falsehoods. Again I ask, please remove this unjustified block. Walterblue222 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are both technically and behaviorally linked to Bloodybrilliantmusic. Whether the two of you are the same person or WP:MEATPUPPETS is irrelevant. I am now revoking your talk page access as you refuse to recognize your mistake. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
@Yunshui and Dlohcierekim: I checked out the "sock puppets" you are accusing me of having and they bring up some solid points. They are not my accounts. As I have repeatedly stated, this account is my only account on wikipedia. I have ever owned or used any other wikipedia account. You say that "unblocking (me) would be a very bad idea" - how so? I have provided relevant contributions and always try to follow wiki rules and guidelines, I do not engage in personal attacks (even though I have been the subject of multiple personal attacks in my short time here), I listen to and respond to any other editor whether they agree or disagree with me, and attempt to achieve consensus by discussing proposed edits. I am relatively new to this community, yet in my short time here I have learned, unfortunately, that there are some truly hateful, self-righteous people who abuse their power here on wikipedia, who perpetuate falsehoods about those they disagree with - rather than engage in a mutually respectful conversations, as I would prefer - and unfairly destroy work and contributions because they disagree with the editor, regardless of the justification and applicable sources supporting the assertions and edits made. I seem to have been given no "good faith", despite this being a "fundamental principle" WP:AGF - why? Walterblue222 (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)