User talk:RJR3333

User talk:RJR3333/Archive 1 User talk:RJR3333/Archive 2 User talk:RJR3333/ARchive 3 User talk:RJR3333/Archive 4

question on talk page[edit]

Hi RJR, I just checked into my wiki page and saw the message band. You've left a message about you being topic banned. You'll need to bring me up to speed. I've not been around the wiki much lately. What's up? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, she was the main person you interacted with in the Hansen dispute after I dropped it, wants to topic ban me from the age of consent/age of majority area because she says that my edits are disruptive,sloppy, and not sourced. She also claims that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent/age of majority being 18 or higher, but my actual position is that it should be 16, and she claims this bias (which I don't have) shows in my contributions, which I find odd because in my earlier edits the opposite bias was very obvious and off2riorob/youreallycan even said he would topic ban me for that opposite bias, and you were criticizing me for suggesting that the age of consent was sixteen in every state. Given my dispute with you earlier, I do not understand how anyone could possibly think I have the bias she is accusing me of. She seems to me want to WP:Own the age of consent/age of majority and puberty articles, and she seems to be extremely opinionated in editing them. Do you think she has a case against me based on the reasons she mentioned, or do you think she is wrong.

Also Malke on an unrelated note, I changed the wording from underage with a pipelink in the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles to simply age of consent and explained that I had found new material justifying the decision. If it bothers you I'm willing to discuss reverting it back, no offense was intended by my comments on talk page of the articles about you I just wanted to explain why I changed it so there won't be another edit war.--RJR3333 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thing is, I'm not a fan of people getting topic banned unless they're being really disruptive. I've seen some serious problems on some of the wiki articles over the few years I've been on, and a dispute over something like the exact age of consent doesn't seem to me to be worthy of that extreme. Is Flyer22 an admin? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she is but she is friends with an admin called Legitimus I think, I don't think he would care enough about our dispute to support her in topic banning me though, because she tried on his talk page to get him to agree with her in attacking my edits to the project as "erratic, sloppy, careless, and unsourced" and to endorse her claim that my edits needed to be reverted and he ignored her. But she might be friends with other admins who would. Maybe I misunderstood her complaint, originally it was bias, but now it seems to be mainly my reverting the articles on certain phrasing she prefers. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/RJR3333 I posted an editor review about the situation here. She has not actually requested a topic ban yet, but she has stated that she is considering doing it, although hesitating about it. But I think she wants to topic ban so I'm worried. If I am topic banned another concern I have is I'll run into the same issues in every section and get banned from the website. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still friends with the user off2riorob/youreallycan or not? Because I've been trying to get him to weigh in on the issue because he's seen my edits before and expressed an opinion and I think his insight might be helpful. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On another note Malke, can you judge whether my edits to the Margaret Sanger article were balanced or were to biased in favor of Sanger. I saw on your page that you are a pro-life Catholic so I think the article would be of interest to you since Sanger was the main person pro-life Catholics had to combat. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did go over the Sanger article. It looks fine. Sorry to see you're blocked. What happened there? Malke 2010 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some inapropriate jokes on wikipedia and used more than one account, which was considered sockmonketry or something. Flyer22 has been threatening to report me ever since you corrected me on To Catch a Predator's age range and pointed out the show was usually 13-15 and I tried to put 13 (instead of 12) into the article, which actually is correct, there was only one episode of the show where the decoys went below, perhaps because adults having sex with children under 13 is sometimes pedophilia since many people, especially boys, don't begin puberty until around their thirteenth birthday, and the show focused more on ephebiophilia. She said "stop this sloppy, erratic, careless, and unsourced editing of yours or I will report you". I responded by asking other editors if they agreed with her that I should be blocked, because I thought I was beating her to the punch in case she reported me. But she was able to use my asking other editors this to accuse me of harassment so it backfired and I was blocked for harassing her, and for my stupid jokes, which I regret. --RJR3333 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, what do you think of my edits to the Roman Polanski article? --RJR3333 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hi RJR3333 - I have left a reply to your query - regards - User_talk:Youreallycan#Bias - Youreallycan 11:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 7[edit]

Please read up on how to move a page. Simply copy-pasting to a new title is inappropriate and will always be reverted. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SqueakBox for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 08:02, 9 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).

RJR3333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I should be unblocked because I have learned my lesson and will stop trolling and socking and will stop trying to edit war. I have made good edits on the simple English wikipedia that were well sourced and have not trolled there and lately I have greatly improved its Roman Polanski and George W. Bush articles in terms of sourcing and also took out potential blp violations from the articles. http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&action=history http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&action=history --RJR3333 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A handful of good edits does not excuse either socking OR the extreme harassment of another editor on this project. Indeed, as per the recent ANI you were extremely close to a block/ban based on your behaviours under this account. My recommendation is this: go away to another project. Become useful. Come back in 6 months. If you even dream of editing English Wikipedia using an account or anonymously during those six months, this offer is withdrawn. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:36, 13 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.

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333. Thank you. Again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:56, 16 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).

RJR3333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because I realize the inapropriateness of my behavior now and will not make jokes and will not communicate with or about Flyer22 in any way, shape, or form even if she talks about me and will only make good edits from now on. Plus if you don't unblock me I can just make up a new screen name and edit articles from that, and after you block that another one, and then another one, and there will be nothing you can do to stop me.

Decline reason:

Its generally a bad idea to request an unblock with a threat to continue disruptive behavior. You are not the first disgruntled user to threaten to make an army of sockpuppets, nor will you be the last. Threatening disruption shows that you are not able or willing to abide by our community standards, and so this unblock is declined. Please read WP:OFFER. If you genuinely want to edit here, please show that you are able to work in another Wikimedia project for 6 months without socking here and a future unblock request will likely yield a different result. AniMate 03:45, 16 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.

We may not be able to stop you completely but we will undo all of your edits thus insuring that any contribution you make will be a waste of your time. This applies whether your edits are good or bad as WP takes the stance that it's better to undo a banned editor's edits than allow them to continue editing. Keep in mind it takes a lot less time and effort for one of us to hit "revert" than it does for you actually put the work into writing. The only way for you to edit WP in good standing is to follow WP:OFFER and the more you sock puppet the more you dig the nails into your own coffin. You messed up, you annoyed the community; take your licks like a responsible adult and work on your behavior privately. If you can demonstrate on another project that you can be a productive editor then maybe in 6 months you can be unbanned. Sædon ^talk 03:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess now that I thought about it I should just wait six months. --RJR3333 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your email[edit]

I got your email. I meant that you should try other Wikimedia projects, like other languages, Simple, or Commons. Note that Simple has an explicit policy that anyone who goes there to work after being indeffed or banned here gets only a single warning before being indeffed there (so I've heard). Additionally, the 6 months mean 6 months of good behavior--i.e., 6 months after you stopped socking, which I think was on July 19. Any further socking results in an automatic restarting of the clock. Furthermore, if you sock too often, you'll inevitably reach a point where the community no longer trusts you no matter what. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just started glancing at your Simple contributions. Quick question: where did the information come from? For example, you added a lot of information to simple:Accountancy. Did you read those sources and then add the info? You should just reply here (commenting on your talk page, as long as it is for a clear purpose, is allowed while you are blocked; if you veer off topic, I'll let you know). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the accountancy article on simple English wikipedia I read some accounting sources to add new, cited info. For other parts of the article, I simply added infomration from the regular English wikipedia and used its sources. I also added some accounting sources I had read to source uncited statements in the article. Is that ok? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also while we're about this, after the six months expires, if I do get unbanned, would you recommend that I stay away from sexuality related articles, or at least the age of consent/age of majority section, and perhaps even from any historical/sociological articles, and edit a less controversial field like accountancy, since those types of articles are consistently what got me in trouble, even on my previous accounts such as FDR?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice this post, my apologies. On the first part, if you add information from English Wikipedia, you must write in the edit summary where you got it from, with a link (a link to the current diff is best). This is required per CC-BY-SA licensing, otherwise it's a licensing violation.

The contributions seem better, though I would really have to comb through everything in detail, which I don't have time at the moment to do. As to the latter part, yes, you should stay away from said articles. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to make that a condition of a return (that is, a formal topic ban). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I contributed to the age of consent and sexuality articles on simple English wikipedia and made good contributions consistently for six months, would it perhaps be possible for me to return to English wikipedia without a topic ban or having to stay away from said articles or would I still necessarily have to stay away from them?--RJR3333 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're so focused on getting back to this one specific topic area, despite being currently fully blocked from Wikipedia, does not speak well for your future success. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your point. I was just asking. I can stay away from that topic area permanently then. I have another question though, I do not have time to edit other wikipedia projects for the next six months because of school. Could I still be unbanned in six months without doing further editing since I have a long history of at least mediocre editing on simple English wikipedia? --RJR3333 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision would not be up to me. It would be up to whatever admin reviewed your unblock request; if you weren't satisfied with that respond, you could ask Arbcom for a panel review. In theory, there is no actual minimum requirement--it's a matter of discretion. But remember this--don't stress about trying to get back here. Focus on school. Focus on your life. Wikipedia's not going anywhere. If you need to walk away for a while, feel free to do so, and then when the 6 months is up, ask for a review. You may be able to come back right away, or the reviewer(s) may ask for more specific details. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that I could appeal the ban earlier than six months, or is that set in stone? For example, instead of a complete ban, could I just be topic banned from articles related to sexuality, age of consent and law, or perhaps even from all articles of a political nature, as an alternative?--RJR3333 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend against it. Many admins take WP:OFFER literally; in particular, it's worrisome that someone can't wait for 6 months, especially since there are other Wikimedia projects that they can also contribute on. I definitely wouldn't even consider making such a request in less than 3 months. In any event, if you're going to be too busy with school...then you're going to be too busy. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have time to review my contributions on simple English wikipedia anytime soon, to see if they actually are better than my ones here, or would you not have time? I did take note of your comment CC-BY-SA licensing requirements, so I tried to note it in my edit summaries when I had copied from here after you made that point, although I merely pointed out that I took it from English wikipedia instead of linking to the specific article differences. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to appeal the site ban until the six months are up, but when I do appeal the site ban from wikipedia, would it be ok to bring up factors involved in the altercation with the other user that I feel were extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that she continued commenting on my edits after I suggested that we simply leave each other alone, or is such an argument a bad one to make when I appeal the ban? --RJR3333 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not have time to review your contributions; I may do so once your unblock request comes up. As for the second point, no, per WP:NOTTHEM. For that matter, review the entirety of the WP:GTAB, as it gives a pretty clear explanation of what to include and exclude in an unblock request. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I stopped socking on July 19 I believe, so if I wanted to make the unblock request in 3 months instead of 6, then I could do it on October 19, is that correct? --RJR3333 (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you post here with questions like this makes me more and more inclined to not recommend you be unblocked. You can't say both "I'm getting really busy so I'm not going to have time..." and "I really really really really really need to start editing Wikipedia as soon as possible". Seriously. Wikipedia is not going anywhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. OF course, this is only one admin's opinion, so it's up to you if you follow it or if you forge ahead ASAP. As I said, I won't review your unblock request. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, then 3 months is to early. Is 6 months, i.e., on January 19, ok, or is that still to early? --RJR3333 (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That will be 6 months since the last time you were caught socking. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 13 September 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).

RJR3333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because I realize the inapropriateness of my behavior now and will not make jokes and will not communicate with or about Flyer22 in any way, shape, or form even if she talks about me and will only make good edits from now on. And I understand that trying to restore changes I made that other editors deleted was inapropriate. And I understand my behavior in general was wrong. And I have not sockpuppeted since July 19 and have made good contributions on simple English wikipedia. I realize my behavior was unacceptable and will not repeat it.

Decline reason:

This is essentially the same request as the previous one, after which you were told to wait until January. Please do so. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 10 November 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.

Although this request would be considered to have reset the clock for a fresh 6 months - as long as no WP:EVADE occurs in the mean time. However, when WP:OFFER was first provided, they were advised that ANY evasion of the block would mean that offer was rescinded. As we have proof - and their admission - that they socked, WP:OFFER is no longer an option. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I am permanently banned from wikipedia with no possibility of ever returning?--RJR3333 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did you read the statement "My recommendation is this: go away to another project. Become useful. Come back in 6 months. If you even dream of editing English Wikipedia using an account or anonymously during those six months, this offer is withdrawn" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just give a yes or no answer instead of a snark?--RJR3333 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to recommend that you not be unblocked on en.wikipedia for at least several more years. You've been told many many times what to do, and yet, you insist upon trying to short-circuit the process, break the rules, push people with all sorts of irrelevant questions...in short, you're demonstrating that you simply are unable or unwilling to follow site policies or guidance from other editors. The very fact that you requested this unblock now is clear evidence that you should not be unblocked. In fact, at this point, I see no reason to allow you continued access to this page, and am revoking it. If you want to file an unblock request (later), do so by emailing the Ban-Appeals Sub-Committee of Arbcom. You can find instructions at WP:BASC. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your email requesting talk page access back, no, you may not. There is no reason for you to have access. When you wish to request an unblock, follow the instructions at WP:BASC. There's nothing more we can do for you--it will be up to the Arbitration Committee to determine if you should be unblocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of On Dreams (Freud) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article On Dreams (Freud) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Dreams (Freud) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Father Ernetti's Chronovisor for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Father Ernetti's Chronovisor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Ernetti's Chronovisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Crime and Outrage Bill (Ireland) 1850" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Crime and Outrage Bill (Ireland) 1850 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Crime and Outrage Bill (Ireland) 1850 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]