User talk:Allstarecho

Per this discussion, do NOT remove any categories from my page, even if they are red-linked or have been deleted. I will revert. Also, do not edit any of my code. I will revert. Thank you and good day.

hey cowpoke!

You did see this I hope ... bring a towel! -- Banjeboi 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll need Jesus...or Robert Tilton. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 10:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I didn't see that one because SOMEONE didn't put it in the Commons gay category! But I'll do that as soon as I'm done here. Toby Keith would be so proud, an so would Heath Ledger! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Although, I prefer these 2 over the cowpokes: yum and yummy. I imagine these 2 images won't last long on Commons as I hardly doubt the uploader actually took these. I've seen these on the 'net before. Can we say copyvios? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Farting preacher! Genius! -- Banjeboi 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeehaw! I must admit that I don't run into many cowboys in DC, although I've seen plenty of rope in various Dupont condominiums. Side note: I just realized MAL doesn't have an article. That's a pretty huge event in DC. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole leather scene is pretty sparse. Most all the major events, titleholders etc etc are absent. The best way to get them revved up is to make one article really good so all the others get jealous! -- Banjeboi 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

American Family Association

Which part of "Watchmen on the Walls, which has been implicated in violence against gays in California" is supported by its source? Can you specifically say how they have acted out in violence against gays in California? Please respond on the AFA's talkpage. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hey, can you check out: User_talk:Moni3#Homosexuality ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

low in fat, high in protein

APK has given you a boi butt, just for shiz and gigglez. The consumption of bois somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. After spreading his cheeks, spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a boi, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or someone who needs to get laid. Enjoy!

Promiscuity

We should jointly decide whether or not MSM statistics belong in the promiscuity article. If you prefer they not be there, I can see how their inclusion isn't needed and can be construed as POV. However, I believe that either all of the original, well-sourced, current statistics should remain or all statistics about MSM should be deleted. Thoughts?  EJNOGARB  16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stats dealing directly with promiscuity certainly do belong. The additional cruft, such as adding the continuance of the blood donor ban for gay people, doesn't. That was purely POV and pointy. I'd also challenge anyone to use modern studies from notable sources, if studies must be used at all. Not studies from the 1970s that are most certainly irrelevant to today's society, gay or straight. I'm one of the first to take the bad with the bad, and the good with the good. Hence why I didn't revert this edit of yours. But obviously I don't agree with whitewashing content to balance an article or a section of an article to one side of the conservative or liberal agenda. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Promiscuity. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Allstarecho. You *do* seem to be edit warring. (For the moment I have no comment on whether anyone else is warring too). If you add a comment to the article's entry at WP:AN3 and offer to undo your last revert, you may be able to avoid a block. Your comment about 'tantamount to vandalism, which trumps 3RR' isn't going to convince any admins. Well-intentioned removal of sourced content is not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a well intentioned removal of content though. It's a calculated collusion between the 2 editors. I'm sure I will be blocked, but I won't offer to under my last revert because the content is valid, sourced and relevant and I won't back down from what I believe in because 2 very politically conservative editors want to whitewash content. If I'm blocked, that'll just give me more time to play Resistance 2. :] Thanks for your thoughts Ed. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely was not proper removal, whether or not i care about hypothetical "intention", and i would ask for objective outsider admins to please look at the behavior of CENSEI and Ejnobarg this week. Those two editors have been so fascinated by topics about men having sex with men, and how many men, and what kinds of sex, and what kinds of homosexuality, etc etc etc.... but their edits have been so pointy it has been necessary for many other editors to come along and undo all the improper POV jamming. I'm getting rather fed up with such jamming, it's not the fun kind of jamming! Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Promiscuity. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I knew it would be Deacon of Pndapetzim as the blocking admin. Funny one of the other involved parties, Ejnogarb, also broke 3RR but isn't blocked. And to say Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes is absurd considering THEY are the ones that didn't discuss it BEFORE removing the content or adding content. Seriously, if you see that a user keeps adding content that many others BESIDES MYSELF keeps reverting, do you think as CENSEI did, that you just come along and jump in the fray removing the same content that's been the issue?? COMMON SENSE. But religious zealots have none of that of course. Their obvious collusion off-wiki worked. Good for them. But to those 2 editors, I'll only say that continued effort on your parts to a) whitewash articles and remove content you find disgusting, liberal or otherwise against anything right wing, and/or b) slant articles with right wing POV - as is the pattern in both of your edit history, will be met with reversions. And take some advice.. stop editing all things gay. Homosexuality, Gay, Man on man sex, gay parts in Promiscuity.. someone might think you are a closeted homosexual with all of the attention you 2 are giving the gay articles on Wikipedia. Good day, and now back to Resistance 2. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that I'm blocked, here Ejnogarb removing the content again from the Promiscuity article. And of course, he's been reverted. His edit warring continues.. and I'm blocked. LMAO! I better warn User:Bali ultimate to be careful about reverting Ejnogarb's edits because CENSEI will come in and remove the content too and bait another block of someone. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And now Ejnogarb is lieing on ANI. Amazing. He's full force now that I'm blocked and can't reply in those places. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not necessarily asking for an unblock.. although it would be nice. But I'm putting this here to bring attention to admins that the edit war is still continuing by user Ejnogarb at the Promiscuity article - the one that started this whole mess. He again deleted the content when he thought it was safe since I got blocked. Of course, he was reverted. That's 5 times in 2 days. But I'm blocked?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm not necessarily asking for an unblock.. although it would be nice. But I'm putting this here to bring attention to admins that the edit war is still continuing by user Ejnogarb at the Promiscuity article - the one that started this whole mess. He again deleted the content when he thought it was safe since I got blocked. Of course, he was reverted. That's 5 times in 2 days. But I'm blocked? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not necessarily asking for an unblock.. although it would be nice. But I'm putting this here to bring attention to admins that the edit war is still continuing by user Ejnogarb at the Promiscuity article - the one that started this whole mess. He again deleted the content when he thought it was safe since I got blocked. Of course, he was reverted. That's 5 times in 2 days. But I'm blocked? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not necessarily asking for an unblock.. although it would be nice. But I'm putting this here to bring attention to admins that the edit war is still continuing by user Ejnogarb at the Promiscuity article - the one that started this whole mess. He again deleted the content when he thought it was safe since I got blocked. Of course, he was reverted. That's 5 times in 2 days. But I'm blocked? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Believe it or no there is no organized effort to push an agenda on that article on my behalf. You need to recognize that you are the one who is bneing disruptive and pushing an agenda. Don think just because a bunch of like minded editors agree with what you are doing makes it any less disruptive or POV. CENSEI (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)