| Revision as of 01:49, 22 June 2015 editFDR (talk | contribs)1,193 edits →My account's name: Blanking page.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:41, 23 June 2015 edit undoFDR (talk | contribs)1,193 edits Since I withdrew that request, and it therefore was not declined, this falls in the part of my talk page I can blank. | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason= The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.|decline=Under the circumstances, I think we could take a ] approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. ] (]) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed|reason= The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.|decline=Under the circumstances, I think we could take a ] approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. ] (]) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)}} | ||
| :::<s>I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back.] (]) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::<s>An editor was posting on my talk on another account against my wishes. I do not want that editor to do this here. And I'm not socking here or criticizing her here, I'm merely making a request, so there's no reason for her to post here. ] (]) 03:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| *'''Note to reviewing administrator:''' Please see relevant conversation at ]. Additionally, I have some concerns regarding possible pedophilia advocacy , , , , , , and note that they have the topic on the Simply Wikitionary. Additionally, please note that they had requested an unblock via ] which was declined and their talk page access was revoked with instructions to contact ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>I think it is ridiculous that Tiptoety is insinuating that I'm a pedophile advocate for this edit, . The legal age for sex in quite a few civilized countries is 14 or 15, Germany, Austria, and France included. There is no substantial difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old, and 16 is the legal age for sex in most American states, I believe. Bishonen labeled me a neo-Nazi for daring to point out Freud was Jewish. It seems if anyone voices any unpopular opinion here there shunned, sigh. I don't think I'm interested in pursing this after Tiptoety's and Flyer's insults. ] (]) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::::On second thought, perhaps it would be best for me to just leave this site alone for six months and then contact BSAC. So I'm just going to cancel the appeal. Once people see that I have edited for six months on the simple English wiktionary productively, then I can be unbanned from simple English wikipedia probably, and then after six months there I could probably be unbanned here. That's probably my best bet. So I'm cancelling the appeal. ] (]) 05:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>I'm not going to use this page to appeal for 6 months, but in order to address the charge made by Tiptoety, that Malke2010 also made before, that my editing involved pedophilia advocacy, I do not feel it did, and I oppose pedophilia, but I have taken extra care now to make sure it contains nothing that Tiptoety could claim was pedophilia advocacy on simple English wiktionary, so this shows I'm more responsible with my editing now. , , , . ] (]) 21:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::<s>I also made this edit, where I corrected a sample sentence that implied 12 year olds were adults and corrected definitions that implied there were other definitions of adulthood than the legal age of majority, . So I'm not giving a false impression that say, 16 year olds are adults, which is something Malke2010, Flyer22, and Tiptoety criticized me for, anymore. ] (]) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::<s>This edit was definitely not pedophilia advocacy, . I was undoing trolling I had done before. It was wrong of me to troll in the past. I thought life was a big joke. I put false information in that article, and then I changed my mind and corrected it. It is true that technically the legal age for sexual activity is 16 in most states, there are some states where it is 18, but not many (although its also true that in most states laws such as contributing to the immorality of a minor are used as alternatives, but that's off topic to this point, what I said there was at least technically correct). That's a fact, whether it should be the case or not is a different matter, so stating that cannot be pedophilia advocacy. So that example Tiptoety used is also a bad one. Even if it should not be the case, it is the case. ] (]) 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::::<s> This edit also cannot be considered pedophilia advocacy. The men who showed up on that show were not pedophiles for the most part. If anything they would have been diagnosed as hebephiles, but even then that would only be for the ones who showed up to meet with victims still in puberty, say ones 13 or younger, and it would also be more about them being fixated on victims that age, rather than an adult finding a 13 year old mildly attractive. That is not condoning their actions, but the perpetrators who showed up on that show do no meet the clinical definition of pedophilia. That is a point Chris Hansen, the host of that show, has made himself. But I have kept Tiptoety's complaint in mind and have altered my editing on simple English wiktionary related to this topic to make it more acceptable to him/her, and am willing to alter my editing on that topic and other topics within reasonable limits if it is criticized. ] (]) 03:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::::<s>With regards to this, , regardless of what Polanski did or did not do, his victim was to old for a pedophile to be interested in, a pedophile would not be interested in a 13 year old who was as mature in appearance as his "victim". And I also took the term age of consent out of the article, and I believe that is a term that is popular mainly among pedophiles, or at least I was told that on wikipedia when people objected to my using the term. So that edit also cannot be considered pedophile advocacy. With regards to my comment that calling his actions against her sexual abuse violated npov, perhaps I was mistaken, but there was dispute between him and her about what happened, he claimed she consented, while she claimed she said no, calling it "abuse" seemed to me to be taking her side, so potentially violating npov. I might have been wrong to take that position, but that was how it seemed to me at the time. ] (]) 04:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::<s>Also, on other topics, I was labeled a bigot by an editor for putting one word in the psychoanalysis article describing Sigmund Freud as Jewish, I may have debated it to much on the talk page, but I did not suggest in the article at all that Freud's Judaism influenced his psychoanalysis, although I did to an extent on the talk page. I also criticized a statement for violating npov that was suggesting psychoanalysis was discredited, even though I'm against psychoanalysis, that shows I can edit objectively, . Even though I oppose Freemasonry, I reverted an edit in a biography that was favorable towards an author who attacked Freemasonry, . So that also shows I can be objective and write from a neutral point of view on other topics also. ] (]) 05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::: I'm also practicing editing on wikinews, and I'm going to try my best/hardest there to be competent, to not make jokes, and to not be disruptive in any way. ] (]) 06:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you don't want me commenting on your talk page or following you to another wiki, then stop commenting on me in different places, such as . That was one of your biggest problems before -- failing to not comment on me. I never called you a pedophile advocate; I have commented on your editing being pro-] in ways (we know that ''pro-pedophilia'' can be broad); I did so because I have been clear that you cannot be trusted to edit pedophilia, ] or ] topics due to your ] (lower the age of consent) POV and that you simply are not good at comprehending policies and guidelines, and various other things. You know very well that I know the differences between a pedophile, ], ] and ]. I have never liked you commenting on me; this is because you always, always describe me or my comments inaccurately. For example, , when I stated, "To other editors, see the edit history of this talk page for what email aspect I was referring to in my '03:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)' post about posting others' emails; PaulBustion88 removed that material.", you , calling me a ]. I'm not even Jewish, and I'm certainly not religious. You acted like I was accusing you of wrongdoing by you having removed that email copy from your talk page; I was not. And that you could not see that speaks more to what I stated about the way you comprehend things. And, as we know, you took to harassing me via email...once again. '''You have not learned a thing.''' I link to ] when it comes to you because it accurately conveys how I feel about your editing; that is as close as I can get to describing your editing without stating things that would insult you significantly more. I would comment on your personality, for example (like the fact that you dared to recently call me a kike), but this is not the place for that. Unlike you, I don't need to resort to such mess. You act like I drove you to calling me a kike and more harassing emails. That you can't even take responsibility for your outbursts is more reason to criticize your ability to edit Misplaced Pages productively. If either of us should be at the end of our ropes, it's me. You are not the victim. | |||
| :::::Every time you plead your case, you dig yourself further into a hole. ] did you a favor at the PaulBustion88 talk page by shutting you up, and here you are again, going on and on about possibly returning to Misplaced Pages and what a decent editor you can be after you have been explicitly told at the PaulBustion88 talk page that you will not be welcomed back here at Misplaced Pages; in other words, you repeatedly blew your chances to edit to here honestly. And yet you have the audacity to continue to comment on me, criticize me, and demand that I don't post to your talk page. I am tempted to report you at ] right now so that your talk page privileges for the FDR account are also restricted. If you move to any of your other WP:Sock accounts and use those to plead your case, I am likely to have the talk page privileges of those shut down as well. ] (]) 06:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your emails == | |||
| Hello there. I am writing to let you know that I have received your emails. I do not respond to emails from block users via email for security reasons. With regards to issues above, I suggest that you cease editing Misplaced Pages for the required 6 month period for the "standard offer." Best, ] <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Also heed what I stated with ] (]) 02:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Wait, that doesn't make any sense, I already am banned from wikipedia. I'm not allowed to edit under any account, its not just this account. ] (]) 03:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :], I kindly suggest you don't post here any longer. There is really no need and you are just antagonizing FDR. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>Thank you, Tiptoety. Last question on my part, I do not want to irritate you, but do any of the edits I linked to above from other wikis look like improvements from my past editing to you, Tiptoety? ] (]) 03:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::FDR, I already tried to explain the difference between a ] and a ] to you at ; I'm not going through that again. | |||
| :::Tiptoety, I disagree, per what I stated above and in . Your decision to refer to the matter as me "antagonizing FDR" is simply fuel for him to be even more disruptive as far as I go (such as claims of ] when he is an indefinitely blocked editor whose disruption I have repeatedly stopped; reporting on his disruption and defending myself against his mischaracterizations of me is not WP:Harassment or antagonizing him). He is antagonizing me, in my opinion. Consider the hell that I have endured when it comes to this editor. He still gets to repeatedly ramble on about me above, at other wikis, and act as though he is a part of the Misplaced Pages community when he is not. But I will do as you suggest in this case and let his disruption at this talk page continue. ] (]) 03:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FDR, this talk page is to be used to request unblocks, something you are no longer doing. Come back in 6 months, and I will evaluate your contributions on other projects then. Until then, please do not continue to post here unless it is an unblock request. Best, ] <sup>]</sup> 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment == | |||
| I'm not going to ramble. But on two wikis, Wikimedia Commons, and Simple English Wiktionary, I have managed to be a productive editor so far, at least in comparison with how I was in the past. , ,,, . ] (]) 05:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here are arguments for why I should not be banned. I've identified my mistakes, and chosen to change them. A problem was I made jokes, I won't again. Another problem was windbagerry, I need brevity. A problem was focusing on the other editors as people instead of on their criticisms of my editing. If an editor criticizes my editing I will only respond to the criticism, not fixate on the editor. One problem I had was I hadn't researched the topics I edited enough. Before I ask to be unblocked, I'm going to do more extensive research on all the topics I plan to edit, including the police,Roman Catholicism, Freemasonry,Judaism, sexuality, the age of consent,etc. by reading books and/or articles about them. I have books about some of these topics at home I haven't read cover to cover yet, reading them will improve my understanding of them. One of my problems was insisting on technical use of terms instead of broad, popular use. For example, Mormonism technically is a different religion from Christianity, and I insisted on adding that on wikipedia and wiktionary, but I changed my mind and decided to call it Christian, before being told to do so,on English wiktionary I wrote in an edit summary, "'''I guess since dictionaries go by popular usage, not necessarily correct usage''', calling Mormonism 'Christian' would be appropriate in this context." Even though on English wiktionary I wanted to have the article include the medical definition of pedophilia, when the consensus went against that, I removed the medical definition myself to appease the consensus, so that shows I'm not as combative as I used to be. I even found a quote that I used as an attestation to support the consensus definition. I said, "Adding Hans Eysenck quote as an attesting usage for the first use of pedophilia in the entry, which I think should be the only sense in the entry." That meant I agree with the consensus. The quote supported the colloquial definition because it was based on law, not on puberty. And if the consensus had gone the other way, I would have supported that to. I will not argue about definitions or minor details anymore. The highlighted part of what I wrote is important, because it shows that even if I think I'm right about a fact, I will not argue about it in the future even if I believe I'm correct. The only case in which I would do that in the future is if someone made up a completely bizarre fact, for example if someone defined Mormonism as "a Buddhist denomination in India founded by Mohandas Gandhi" or someone defined pedophilia as "a condition where a person is addicted to watching television all day", those would be bizarre definitions, and I would be against those, but that issue would never come up realistically,and could probably be safely left to others, so even then I probably would not be involved in that dispute. But if it's a fact widely thought, and I merely disagree with it, I will not argue against it. One of my problems was putting off topic stuff in articles. I've learned not to. A problem was sometimes I let my bias influence editing, I will try to be as neutral as possible next time. That's my last comment before I appeal my unblock in 6 months.] (]) 07:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Tiptoety suggested I advocated pedophilia in some of my edits. Of the 6 examples he gave, only those that were number 1,4,and 5 in his links, though they'll have different numbers here,,and could plausibly be considered biased advocacy edits. 6 is a positive statement, not a normative one. A positive statement means what is, a normative statements means what should be. 6 is simply saying the most common minimum legal age for sex in the members of the USA is 16 years, it's not saying that should be the case. Also, I believe that I was correction false information I'd inserted intentionally as part of my trolling, where I falsely said the minimum legal age was usually 17 or 18. I believe the most common age in the USA is 16 years, I know that is the case in my state, Indiana. That is just a fact, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, so that edit cannot be considered pedophilia advocacy even if sex with anyone under 18 is pedophilia. 3 is simply saying that most of the actors on the show were portraying 13-15 year old victims, and ones playing victims as young as 12 were rare, that's also a positive statement, not a normative. My edit summary saying, "they were focusing more on hebephiles than pedophiles" is hair splitting, but that's also a positive statement, not a normative one. It's not saying hebephilia is less bad than pedophilia. Also edit 2 is just removing a quote made by one of the predators who showed up on the show. I think I'm the one who added the quote, but I'm not agreeing with what he said by having added it or trying to cover it up by having removed it. Edit 1 that Tiptoety showed does show a bias in favor of Polanski's innocence, and I believe now that I was mistaken in saying he was innocent, I think Polanski was guilty, and that could tie in with pedophilia advocacy I suppose since his victim was younger than 14 years. Edit 4 also is biased,as shown by the summary "predator is pov against the perpetrators and it isn't necessarily a universal opinion, the age of consent is fifteen in many countries", but there is not really a neutral position that can be taken there, if we say they are predators, that would be anti-ephebophilia advocacy. It is true that the minimum legal age for sex is below 16 years in most foreign countries, whether it should be the case is a different matter, but since it clearly is a mainstream viewpoint to have a minimum legal age for sexual activity of 14-17 since that's the minimum legal age for sex in many,possibly most European states, to call anyone who has sex with a person slightly than 18 a pedophile or predator is biased against a viewpoint that is mainstream, whether it is correct or not.That's the same reasoning for my argument against using the term abuse in the edit number 5. Even if I was mistaken in my viewpoint that the minimum legal age for sex should be lowered, it isn't as fringe a viewpoint as NAMBLA's view that age of consent laws should be abolished and pedophilia should be legalized, because a lot of other countries have the same lower age limits laws I was in favor of (Germany, Austria, France Poland, etc.). One more thing, an editor accused me of being a passionate anti-Semite,because I used the word Jewish to describe Sigmund Freud in articles related to him. I did not even suggest in the articles that his Jewish background effected his theories, although I did on the talk pages, I just used the one word Jewish. I do oppose some forms of the Jewish religion, but I'm not a racist, and I do not blame people for things beyond their control, such as who there parents are,and even then I do not oppose all forms of it,just certain ones I think are harmful and I also understand that wikipedia is not a forum to promote my opposition to or support for anything. I've also criticized the racial anti-Semitism of Carl Jung, not here, but to other people, and I've criticized the racial anti-Semitism of the New Age movement. On wikisoure I suggested that they should not include Henry Ford's book The International Jew, because even though I agreed with some parts of it, for the most part I viewed it as being very hateful towards and bigoted against ethnic Jews. This editor (I'm trying to avoid referring to editors by name), acted as if my mentioning Freud's Judaism was absurd because he was an atheist, but she was wrong, there are atheistic forms of Judaism. It is not impossible to be religious while believing that God does not exist. Many eastern religions, such as Theravada Buddhism, are atheistic.Freud was a member of quasi-Masonic fraternity called B'Nai Brith, which I believe follows a humanistic kind of Judaism. So my referring to him as Jewish was not as absurd as it seems at first. ] (]) 09:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Email == | |||
| I received your email message, ]. You don't have to worry about any criticism I might have had about your edits. You are blocked as a sock account and my opinion has no weight on whether or not you are unblocked. You have to convince admins that you will not longer edit from multiple accounts which will be a hard obstacle to overcome. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :], yes, you can blank your talk page, read ]. You can remove any messages except declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. | |||
| :As for my opinion of the quality of your edits, it doesn't matter as you are indefinitely blocked and any edits you make will be considered block evasion and be removed. If you ever get unblocked, I'll offer my opinion but right now, the question is moot because you are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. I see no reason for you to send me further email messages. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 19:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:41, 23 June 2015
FDR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is my original account. I will not troll, make jokes, etc, anymore. I will only make constructive edits.
Decline reason:
You were using sockpuppet accounts as recently as 4 days ago...I odn't quite see you understanding the issues involved here. only (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (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.
FDR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.
Decline reason:
Under the circumstances, I think we could take a standard offer approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (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.