Jump to content

User talk:Flyboyrob2112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyboyrob2112 (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 18 November 2022 (No more 0RR for me. →January 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Flyboyrob2112! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Isobric process

W is work done to the system not work DONE BY the system. It has to be defined one way. They chose this. Boomer7777777777777 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Franchesca Ramsey have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing defamatory or libelous about quoting her. Read your own damn link. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of racism

"Restored my edit. Her claim is much more controversial than "plants get energy from sunlight", and thus notable"

The "racism = prejudice + power" definition of racism is very commonly used (you can find it in the racism article too). I bet if you took an introduction to racism course, you'd hear the same thing she said in her video. For that reason, it's an unnotable detail. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the definition of racism. Institutional racism, yes. But claiming that this is the actual definition of racism is nothing more than a transparent attempt to absolve bigoted minorities of any responsibility for their rhetoric. Flyboyrob2112 (talk)
It's irrelevant whether Ramsey expressed opinions that are correct or not. You cannot add negative statements about a living person without very strong sourcing. No matter how many downvotes a YouTube video gets, the fact is that zero respectable, mainstream experts have called Ramsey any of the names you're throwing around. The video in question hasn't been the subject of any controversy in reliable sources. See WP:RS. Social media posts, anonymous likes, and anything of that kind carries no weight.

Note that the article Racism addresses the question you are concerned with. You don't need to add defamatory content to bring these issues to light. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make any value judgments about her statements in the article. It's literally just a line repeating her claim. Whether it's negative or not is up to the reader's interpretation. The fact that you think adding a literal statement of hers to her article is defamation is rather telling. Stop edit warring. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you need to carefully re-watch the video in question. Ramsey makes a clear distinction between 'racism' and 'racial prejudice'. Your edits aren't even an accurate representation of Ramsey's uncontroversial statements. But even if they were, you must cite a third party reliable source.-Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Information icon Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Franchesca Ramsey, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Franchesca Ramsey. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please discuss this at Talk:Franchesca Ramsey. Working out a consensus is much more realistic than trying win an edit war over a WP:BLP issue.

Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's referenced and quite adequately so. There's no consensus to be had with you. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Franchesca Ramsey. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Franchesca Ramsey. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Flyboyrob2112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Repeated reversion of adequately sourced material on false grounds of libel. Editor involved in reverting my contribution 3+ times were not warned or blocked. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nevertheless, you were edit warring so your block is appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2017 (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.

Addressing the points in Talk: Franchesca Ramsey

  1. This isn't controversial content. She said it. It's indisputable.
  2. There's nothing about that policy that prohibits using a primary source in this matter.
  3. It's common among ivory tower academics and minorities who want to be racist without being labeled as such. Regardless, she still said it.
  4. If you don't like that specific word, change it. That's not a reason to revert the entire edit.
  5. I don't claim in the article that there's a controversy, so there's no need for it to be sourced.

Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to join the current Franchesca Ramsey discussion, regarding Dennis' edits again. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at United States Senate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

El_C 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the block per your agreement on UTRS to a topic ban from post 1932 US politics and a 0RR restriction. I suggest you review WP:TBAN what a topic ban entails, as well as WP:BANEX for what exceptions are permitted to a topic ban. My suggestion would be to just stay away from topic banned subjects altogether, though. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI I don't agree to abide by the 0RR restriction anymore. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Musk

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 12:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you lying sack of shit. A single revert is not an "edit war." Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyboyrob2112&oldid=1122617888"