User talk:JOrb

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. — regards, Revi 12:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to LGBT propaganda. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please read WP:POVFORK. Creating a version based on"alternative" points of view isnot consistent with Wikipedia policy. bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, none of the three sources you included supports the notion that "LGBT propaganda" exists. --bonadea contributions talk 11:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are heavily biased if you think LGBT propaganda doesn't exist. Anything which is promoted counts as propaganda. You name it: Christian propaganda, islamic propaganda. Propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing and it does exist. You can't deny it. --JOrb (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more explicit? I provided sources and nothing was my point of view from there. And gay agenda and LGBT propaganda are 2 different things. What do these abuses mean? JOrb (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You provided sources that stated that "LGBT propaganda" is a term used about a concept that does not exist – thay say the opposite of what you wrote in the article. As a non-native speaker of English, you might be aware of the fact that in English, propaganda is not a neutral term but a negativeely loaded word. Did you have a chance to read WP:POVFORK? --bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i think we can sort the issues out. I understand what your concerns are. First, it's true i didn't find sources related to LGBT propaganda due to Google censorship in my country, but I am committed to rewrite the article with the right sources if that was the problem. Second, you're wrong about the meaning of the word propaganda. You can check the meaning of the word propaganda here [1]. It is only wrongly thought that the word propaganda has a bad meaning due its usage in the context of the Nazi or Communist era, but that doesn't mean all propaganda is bad. Also, if you consider that the word propaganda is against the neuter POV, I suggest removing it from every Wikipedia page. Cheers! --JOrb (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Gay agenda for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it was important to clarify that calling people extremists in an arbitrary way is not improving the Wikipedia neutrality. But don't worry, I already know not everyone here is of good faith.--JOrb (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: gender-related controversies

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, i feel offended. There is literally no need for this. Hope this was only a misunderstanding. Thank you! JOrb (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 bis

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

What was the reason for being blocked again? I hope you do realize this is an abuse... What did I do? I complained for being insulted and what i get is being insulted by administrators and blocked without warning...--JOrb (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At 11:21, 26 June 2021 you were informed that personal opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. At 14:24, 26 June 2021 you were informed that articles on the subject of "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" were under discretionary sanctions and that editors working in those areas were expected to "follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic". You relied that this "offended you".

You continued pushing your POV in multiple places on Wikipedia. You characterized a human rights struggle as propaganda in the article space even though you had been reverted and told it was not appropriate. You took the law in a specific jurisdiction and declared it to be some sort of universal truth. Frankly to quote another editor you seemed to be intentionally being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

I have zero confidence that you are here to write a neutrally toned encyclopedia. I think you are here to push an anti-LGBT point of view and we do not have a place for that here.

I read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bonadea. That blue box notifying you of the discretionary sanctions was your warning, as was the warning above it that you dismissed. I agree with the admin who called you a bigot. I think that User:Ymblanter did exactly the right thing here. I am declining your unblock request. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:17, 28 June 2021 (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 have been clearly told at ANI, by several users, that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to advocate for your ideas. You have chosen not to listen. As a consequence, I have blocked you per WP:NOTHERE. I have actually provided this link above and also in the block log. What you need to do now is to read it and then to try convincing the unblocking administrator that you have understood it and the block is no longer necessary. I will not be available for at least the next 8 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want the unblocking administrator to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bonadea and decide accordingly. I didn't even finish reading Ymblanter's warning that I've been blocked. Another administrator called me bigot after I just complained for being called bigot... I will stay away from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, never mind anyone feel free to insult me, it's not like there is someone to do something about it :/ --JOrb (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me for breaking neutrality when you say human rights struggle referring to same-sex marriages. Human rights according to whom? Do you even have a BD in law? When I said it isn't a fundamental right, I quoted ECHR. Why do you put some countries' opinion about marriage before an international court? How do you even talk about neutrality under such conditions when clearly you are biased and the opinion that same-sex marriages are a human right struggle prevail over every other opinion in whole world. I was so naïve to think Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. I see it now. This is a Neo Nazi attitude.--JOrb (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off I don't know of many neo-nazi's that are pro same sex marriage, they are far more likely to take your point of view. Secondly I was not referring to same sex marriage but instead you referring to the LGBT movement as "propaganda". Thirdly if you continue to make personal attacks you will lose your talk page privileges. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am going to exhort: You should stop talking. You are not doing yourself any favors by arguing a position that has been found to be so aggressively and critically wanting. Read and understand what is happening and why before you claim that that you are the victim of Naziism. Jorm (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis put homosexuals in concentration camps. Just saying. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking the Nazis – who persecuted gay people – makes it clear that this is pure trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the users talk page access has been removed I think it prudent that further conversation take place on another talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 44860

UTRS appeal #44860 is declined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Along with the indefinite block, the community has determined that you be site banned following community consensus. (see also: WP:CBAN) This means that an admin. should not lift the block without an unban discussion passing through the community first. diff — Ched (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]