User talk:12302burn

Consensus versus reality is different. Rightfully, Naomi Osaka is proud of both heritages. Both Haitian and Japanese heritages are to be validated as they encompass a truth and fact.

As we know, race has been and is an issue in Japan with people like Naomi being termed as "Hafu". We endeavor to promote transparency in what is a positive outlook on international sports icons who represent cross culture unity and promote a positive outlook towards young adoring fans. So, if consensus (which is not uniquely based on the general public, internationally) wants to glorify Japan as being the sole claimant to Naomi Osaka, then it is indeed an erroneous way of approaching this. The truth about her nationality does not infringe on anyone's racial, religious or political views.

Naomi Osaka

Per consensus the Naomi Osaka lead states that she "is a professional tennis player who represents Japan." Changing that to Haitian - Japanese or anything else is against consensus. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive discussion of inclusion of nationality in the lead of Naomi Osaka. Please stop edit warring to restore your preferred version which runs against the consensus of this RfC.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Naomi Osaka. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. We have tried to explain this to you nicely. So now this is a formal warning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--

I have also messaged Wikipedia with my input into why it is necessary for inclusive content of her heritage into the Wiki. I await their decision and so, in the meantime, I would suggest we leave the edit as is until a final judgement on the different approaches we have to this. 12302burn (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to understand is this has already undergone scrutiny by consensus, and you continuing to add the info is edit warring against multiple editors. The fact her father is Haitian is already described in her "Early life and background" section. Otherwise this has been discussed at Talk:Naomi Osaka. You are new and maybe don't understand how Wikipedia works, but please refrain from adding this again. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand what you are saying. And based on your "scrutiny by consensus" I see that from the comments, you propagated or goaded to have the "Hatian-Japanese" portion of the lead deferred. So, you can call it pre-meditation. However, the discussion "by consensus" was amongst a small group. The defiance to including "Hatian-Japanese professional..." goes beyond the scope of reasoning. It in no way takes away from who she is. It in actuality embrasses who she represents as a human being, a sportswoman, a Haitian and Japanese. All these encompass what our sportsmen and sportswomen should represent. And the youth ought to see such examples of unity in culture to embrace love in this world. With that, I chose to embrace inclusion. 12302burn (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I would have included anything it might have been Japanese or perhaps Japanese-American but someone else came up with something that more people agreed with. As long as there was consensus, I was good with it. Editor Iffy★Chat started the RfC and editor Scolaire came up with a plan that more people agreed with. It didn't matter that my choice was different, I'm following the consensus that was made. As should you. And please sign your posts at the end so we know who we're talking to. Put a space and then four ~~~~'s at the end. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Naomi Osaka, you may be blocked from editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As you see, or may have seen, there was an adverse reaction to placing "Haitian" in her lead. And from the looks of things, it was more based, quietly on possible racial discomfort. But that should not allow such bigotry to envelope our freedom to speak truth. Bias is there, but we can not allow such things or ideas to permeate what Wikipedia is all about. We are here to promote a culture that is inclusive no matter skin, race, culture, sex, etc. We have to stand for what is right. ---- 12302burn

That is a load of baloney. Good luck to you here, you're going to need it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Iffy★Chat -- 22:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Welcome the notice. And I hope that this entire thread is read to see what points I am bringing out. There has been no hateful input from my end. My edit is proper and recognizes the proper state of what is being shown in the lead.

12302burn

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

12302burn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23412 was submitted on Nov 28, 2018 23:30:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]