Hopscootchica
Welcome edit
|
June 2019 edit
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Pamela Geller. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- I keep seeing your edits on my watchlist. Since you left such a polite, personalized note on my talk page, I will return the favor. Wikipedia favors reliable sources, with a special preference for independent sources. This is why your changes to the Geller article were inappropriate. We are not looking for quotes from Geller herself, we are mainly looking for what reliable sources say about Geller.
- Further, we use consensus to decide how to summarize those sources. The consensus of many editors has been that the Nazi gun control argument is a fringe position which should not be misrepresented as having widespread academic support. If you think this is inaccurate, please bring your academic sources to the article's talk page, so consensus can be changed. This also applies to the Geller article.
- Thank you.
- Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing Mr. “I have to make everyone thinks the way I do to feel good about myself”
Changing the title of sources is either inexcusable carelessness or vandalism edit
I can't understand how anyone can do this as it was so obvious. Just don't do it again. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Bolton, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Grayfell. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —PaleoNeonate – 15:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Also please read WP:EDITWAR.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read edit
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-1932 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 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.
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
Doug Weller talk 18:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 edit
Your recent editing history at Nazi gun control argument shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- You've made four reverts, and your conduct toward other editors is not what we expect. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying what the DS alerts mean in terms of behavior edit
First let me explain that I cannot act as an WP:Administrator if I get involved in your editing dispute. So please don't expect me to.
Secondly, if you had made this edit after I gave you the alert you could be blocked or topic banned. Discretionary sanctions means we expect editors to avoid editwarring within the area and to be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Hopefully this should be easy for you now you've had the alert and I presume understand what they mean. Make sure you read any notices on talk pages about discretionary sanctions and when you edit make sure that if there's a notice above the edit window you read it. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Nazi gun control edit
There is a discussion here [[1]] about what the source does and does not say. You should make your case there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Biographies of living people, reliable sources and WP processes edit
Hello again. This will be my last message to you. Wikipedia material must be sourced to reliable sources (WP:RS). This is especially true of biographies (WP:BLP). You have already received a special alert relating to them above. here you are posting claims about the private life of someone, without providing any source to support it.
Whining about bias and "leftist sources" is also not helpful (WP:FIXBIAS). But yes, Wikipedia material should use secondary sources and generally avoid primary ones, with Youtube videos rarely allowed. I suggest consulting Identifying reliable sources, Perennial sources and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to determine if a source is usable. Maybe also useful could be a third party assessment of common US news sources such as https://www.adfontesmedia.com/. Original research and editor synthesis (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) is also not acceptable (as would be interpretting a primary video source ourselves). There are other web venues for such, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia.
When proposing a change to an article, editing it is fine, if supporting the material with a citation (WP:CITE). Per WP:BRD, if someone reverts, it's time to either move on or to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page. Not by complaining, or accusing editors of nefarious motives, but by reading the objections raised and adapting constructively (you seem to not acknowledge at all that the claim you inserted into the Nazi gun control argument was not supported by the source you cited, even if that was clear in my comment there, as well as that of at least another experienced editor).
I also suggest reading WP:WARN. Wikipedia has policies and editors are expected to edit according to them (WP:NOTFREESPEECH), editing is a privilege. Editors who patrol recent changes can also rightfully warn when necessary, like what happened above. This is not a bullying game. There are enough accumulated warnings that you may imminently be blocked; it's up to you... —PaleoNeonate – 23:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Im making claims about his life that he wrote about in his own book, i mean are you eying you know more about his life than him?, but i get it, it is a first person account. I do not understand why no information can be used from it? (he even says in the book that if anyone can prove that something he says in the book is a lie, that he will give them a large some of money (cant remember how much) and no one has proved anything false) also the book is already cited on the page
I stopped edit warring in order to discern if the article i used was legitimate and you have yet to refute it. I if I edited again i would not say historian given i was incorrect about the legitimate professors profession, but the dialogue ended on your end.
suggesting that I am malicious in my actions is not only insulting, but immature and I expect more from such a senior editor. But absolute power corrupts absolutely so I wouldn't expect any less.
I suggest you consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics for more info on how to behave moving forward. --Hopscootchica (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 edit
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to an editor who is expressing concern about your edits with a personal attack like the one above is not appropriate. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. Disputation of your edits and explaining why they are problematic is not a personal attack, but stating in response that other editors are corrupt is. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your "intellectually dishonest" and "childish" accusations are noted as well. Any more of that and you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Saying that someone is "intellectually dishonest" is not a personal attack. A personal attack is name calling, like f*t, retar*** etc... I am describing what i think he is doing and it is relating to his content. "childish could have an argument for being a personal attack so i wont do that anymore. However "intellectually dishonest" is a good word that describes many editors on this platform and if you believe that its a personal attack I would have to disagree. Maybe an editor higher than you could levy an opinion, especially if they have views that are right of Mao, which is very rare on this platform.
Hopscootchica (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding what? I have not edited a page in over a day.
- And I've noted that. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not wanting to be treated like a second class editor because of my beliefs. Sadly, I have become used to it. Personal attacks against be are levied with impunity, while I, am branded 1000 times for every imperfection that I commit. Heavy lies the crown of knowledge upon my head. Hopscootchica (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please see my comments in PS. Please remove the enormous chip from your shoulder. I fear that unless you take a less uncollaborative approach to editing in this environment, your tenure here will be brief.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)- The only thing you've been doing recently is arguing with everybody you encounter, including me. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hopscootchica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not edited an article in over 24 hours, i stopped edit warring after i found out it was an offense (I even went so far as to allow the other people to keep the article in its wrong form in order to let them figure out why they are wrong, yet this still has occurred. you already know i am not editing articles anymore, so this is a punishment. And per the wikipedia terms on blocking, it is not meat as a punishment. I am aware of what i have done wrong, even though those who did equally wrong are not even talked to. One user even instructed me to commit suicide. So this is futile. Also disruptive editing is for articles, not talk pages. I have not tried to escalate anything. I apologize for being a better debater, but that is my only crime. I might have misinterpreted what that user said, but I took it personally and any person would interpret "self-delete" as suicide. I challenge you to say "you should self-delete to the cashier at your local market and then tell me what their reaction was. I am the one being treated with block for having a differing opinion.. Thanks. Also, I stopped using "personal attacks" since iI guess they were hurting someones feelings. (even though saying "intellectual dishonesty" is not a personal attack Hopscootchica (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:21, 25 June 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.
- Nobody instructed you to commit suicide (reviewing admins can see a discussion of this at AN3). You misinterpreted a request that you revert your own edit, and have steadily tried to escalate every discussion into an argument. That is what you were blocked for, to stop an escalating pattern of disruptive behavior. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Your unblock request is only digging the hole deeper. You don't understand Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. You don't understand Wikipedia's standards for collaboration. You equate others' criticisms of your content with your own attacks against editors themselves. You misinterpret objections to content as objections to reality. So in fact, your talk page comments are tremendously disruptive. It's nice that you begrudgingly accept that you are not to edit war, or launch personal attacks, or make unsourced contributions - but I still see no understanding of the underlying issues. The talk page discussions you have been a part of, had they been more polite, would have still been a complete waste of time if they failed to educate you on Wikipedia's standards. If you continue to waste peoples' time with hopeless arguments upon the expiration of your block, it is inevitable that you will find yourself blocked again, eventually forever. I would recommend that you take a very hard look at WP:RS, at the very least. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Mkay, I'll wait out my gulag sentence. Id rather that than bend over a table for you guys to unblock me. I have a little bit of dignity.
- And with attitudes like that your going to get a longer block. Please read wp:tenditious, and wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
——- Please read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
- What has that got to do with this? The issue is about your actions, not whether or not they are moral or ethical, but whether they break our rules. Please do not try to justify your actions as some kind of quixotic fight for ethical or mortal behavior. At this stage I am going to suggest you are two posts from a permablock. I suggest you take heed, no one is going to see as as some noble victim of oppression. This is my last comment here, I have tried to make you see sense, and if you are going to go out of your way to get a block your choice, for that is what you are doing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
——- I guess we have a different view on the story of Don Quixote.
This is my last post as well Mr. Steven. Heavy lies the crown of knowledge upon my head, a curse is what I presume it to be.
I fully comprehend your view of what I am doing and I will furthermore wait out my gulag sentence in pieces.
PS edit
Your attitude is excessively combative and contrary to a collaborative work environment. If anyone is bullying others, it is you. Please use the time remaining in your block to take in the vast amount of feedback you have received.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
mkay ill be here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
Hi Hopscoothchica, Greetings, I have reverted your edit for the above page, pls read WP:MMA for the style infobox section for a mma fighter. Thank you.````
Block notice edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)- I've blocked you until you can come up with a plausible explanation for the last edit you made prior to this block.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hopscootchica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i made such an eddit becasue the way you talk reminds me of a "gay boy" in a way. I didnt know that would offend you since i dont belive being gay is a bad thing, if you personally feel that way then im not sure why an intolereant person such as yourslef would even be edditing wikepeida in that sense. I am sorry that i offended your belifes, however backwards they might be.
Decline reason:
That's quite enough. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:49, 21 May 2020 (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.