User talk:Spottedfeather

Welcome

Hello Spottedfeather, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --role^player 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Hi, I have responded to your post at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Hope it helps. --Beloved Freak 10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of iCarly episodes

Hello Spottedfeather, please add relevant citations to the article to show that iMatchmaker and iGot a Sponsor are the correct names. Thank you. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

reason for block doesn't make any sense

Decline reason:

Yes it does. You were warned not to create an inappropriate page, yet you continued to do it. Thus you abused your editing privileges. — Smashville^talk 02:01, 16 January 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

how was my article inappropriate ?

Decline reason:

See below. All articles must establish that their subjects meet a certain standard of notability (standards for biographies. When you recreate a page, the deletion log is provided for you, so you were given the reason why it was being deleted each time. That reason had a link to the relevant deletion criteria: An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. You added sources, yes, however none can be considered reliable; IMDB includes anyone who's ever been in a film, regardless of its importance; Youtube is not reliable since anyone can upload anything, and you were linking to the subject's own channel page anyway; and his own site cannot be used to establish his notability since it is his own. You need multiple third-party sources that do more than simply refer to him in passing, or need to demonstrate with references that he meets one of the criteria listed at WP:BIO. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (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 were asked to stop adding it, but instead of deletion review or discussing with anyone, you just continued to recreate it over and over and over. --Smashville^talk 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kept adding it because no one would explain how my article was inappropriate.....and no one has explained it still.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you never bothered to ask. The official reason you were blocked was violating the 3RR rule. Since you posted the article more than 3 times, this would be the case. You were told your page was inappropriate. If you wanted more detail, you could have asked instead of continuing to edit war by putting it back up. --Smashville^talk 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could someone be helpful and tell me the "reasons" that my article was inappropriate ? I didn't see anything wrong with it even when I was told it was wrong. So, I fixed it and STILL it wasn't to y'alls liking. What was wrong with it ? Please, tell me.

It doesn't meet notability standards or even make an assertion of notability. --Smashville^talk 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I was told to put references and I added references. What more do you people want ?Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk)

Please read WP:N. Again, you didn't even make an assertion of notability. But that is beside the point. Again, you were blocked for violating the 3RR rule. --Smashville^talk 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all far, far too technical for me. Can someone please tell me exactly what I need to do to keep my articles from getting deleted ? What exactly are reliable sources ? The subject of my article was mentioned on a radio program. Should I put that in the references ?Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. [...] As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources." YouTube and IMDB, being user edited where anyone can add or edit information, do not count as verifiable.

Please don't be discouraged by your block; 3RR blocks are meant to make users stop editing and rethink their edits. After your block expires, I hope to see you continue editing Wikipedia. Good luck! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing just sucks. I try my best to write an article to help out a friend and am told it's not good enough and to add references. So, I add the references, and still it's not good enough. I tried adding references in the form of Shawn C. Phillps's official website, his youtube page, and IMDB. Would a person's own official website be considered the highest verifiable and reliabe source ? Seems so to me. This mess has really soured me on the whole wikipedia thing.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing you think this way. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has high notability standards for good reason: to keep the encyclopedia at a high quality level. I've looked over this guy's IMDB page; it does not look inherently notable; the problem here looks two-fold: first, the biography is for a person who may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and second, problems of using verifiable resources. IMDB and YouTube, while useful, are not reliable resources. The official site may be reliable, but if subject of the site is someone who does not meet notability standards, then you need to either 1) make an argument for the person's notability in the article, or 2) just accept that the person does not meet notability standards and focus your energy on other subjects.

In short, it may suck, and I feel your pain (I have had an article deleted in the past when the subject did not meet notability standards). However, these standards are necessary in order for Wikipedia to be taken seriously as a project. If the overall quality level for Wikipedia falls, the whole project will suffer. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what "notability standards" are ? And what are they ? The way that people try to explain it, it sound like people that aren't notable aren't real. Well, I assure you Shawn Phillips is real. Explain notability standards, as no one here seems to be willing to !Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume wrongly. I'm a real person but I sure as heck ain't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I don't know if the same case is true with Shawn Phillips, but if other users are arguing that the subject is not notable, they are doing so for a good reason; it's nothing personal. Just read the Wikipedia guidelines on the subject (see WP:NOTABILITY, or more specifically, WP:PEOPLE); those pages spell out Wikipedia's notability guidelines specifically (much better than any one editor could here on your talk page).

As for your question on "who decides what 'notability standards' are," these standards have been reached by discussion and consensus by the Wikipedia community at large. If you disagree with the standards, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability to change them. However, you had better have a compelling argument because you'd be going against years of Wikipedia consensus among thousands of Wikipedia editors. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at an article for the girl that plays the cashier in the Progressive Auto Insurance commercial. This article seemed to have far less notable references than the article I tried to write for Shawn Phillips. Why was the Stephanie Courtney article accepted but mine wasn't ? Mine had far more references.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the article does not meet notability standards, you are always welcome to nominate the article for deletion under WP:AfD. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it doesn't meet notability standards, which is a stupid idea. I'm just saying that the article that I tried to put up has far more different references, yet my article was repeatedly taken down. It just doesn't make any sense that an article with more references than another was taken down while an article with practically no references is allowed to stay up. Please explain this, as no one has been able to so far. You say that Wikipedia is a site that lets everybody edit it, but in reality, when someone writes an article with great references in comparison to another article, they get shot down. Doesn't make any sense !Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pian too. Wikipedia never has high standards, they have biased standards that are jealousy guarded.Neptune123456 (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Okun/Independence Day

Howdy. I left this on the Independence Day discussion page -

As a compromise, I would suggest leaving alone the description that states he was killed by the alien, and then follow it up with the fact that the filmmakers hinted that he's simply in a coma. I'll leave this up to someone who knows how to properly format a citation of a DVD commentary.

- If you know how to do this, please do so, as I think it really is worthy of noting once you can bypass the whole citation format issue. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spottedfeather. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spottedfeather. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was the one that was personally attacked and I'M the one that's been blocked ? I asked a question and some moron called Quixotic potato made stupid jokes. I replied and now I'm blocked ? It wouldn't be a problem if it was possible to block someone from attacking you on your own talk page...which you can do on every other website in the world...

Decline reason:

Making another personal attack in your unblock request is ultimately self-defeating. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 23 December 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.

Wikipedia is not 'every other website in the world...' , it's an encyclopedia. If you make any further comments that disparage our editors or that are otherwise inappropriate, I block you indefinately. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as long as the people that attack ME are blocked, too, and not just allowed to say whatever they want against the rules, which apparently only apply to me and not the people that start the fight and attack me first and not allow me to respond.

May 2018

Your recent editing history at AK-47 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assault weapons

You should re-post this edit of yours to WT:GUNS. Share with many instead of just one. FYI & imho - ^theWOLFchild 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Probably don't want to encourage posts like that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... just figured he should know about the FA project. ~~Should probably get a DS notice as well.~~† - ^theWOLFchild 20:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

†Nevermind, I see you just took care of that. - ^theWOLFchild 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Assault weapon" vs "assault rifle"

Assault rifle is an internationally used and widely recognised purely technical term (a direct translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr"), describing a type of weapon (a select fire, i.e. with provision for both single-shot and fully automatic fire, weapon with a detachable magazine, chambered for an intermediate cartridge) that can not be legally owned by civilians in North America, Europe and most other places on Earth, while assault weapon is a legal/political term used only in the U.S. (AFAIK), describing semi-automatic weapons with certain features, weapons that can be legally owned by civilians, at least in the United States. The two terms thus have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and removing the term "assault rifle" from articles about military weapons that technically are assault rifles because of disliking the purely civilian/legal/political term "assault weapon" is a sign of utter ignorance. Or in other words, do not edit articles about things you obviously know absolutely nothing about, because continuing to do so will with all probability get you blocked from editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I DO know what I'm talking about. I never said assault rifles didn't exist. I said assault WEAPONS don't exist....which they don't. The only difference between an "assault weapon" and a hunting rifle is the colour and shape of the grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs)

Then why did you remove the term assault rifle from AK-47? Twice, even ([1], [2]). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so tired, I think that I was thinking of something like an uzi or some hunting rifle.

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

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 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. - ^theWOLFchild 17:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spottedfeather. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Concerning Jurassic Park Not Being Science Fiction

Before you restore your edits to Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park (film), may I invite you to discuss on either articles' talkpages to discuss why they are not in the science fiction genre, even though lots of documentation exists of them being in that genre?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Jurassic Park is science fiction

The Jurassic Park novel, film, and franchise are all in the science fiction genre. Science fiction doesn't always include just spaceships and aliens. Science fiction features futuristic concepts, and Jurassic Park was a futuristic park in the middle of nowhere (like Jurassic World, which replaced it). Also, dinosaurs cannot be cloned. Scientists cloning dinosaurs is imaginative (the science fiction genre also has imaginative elements, typically ones that break science rules). Thank you for understanding. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:6106:DF8D:B600:C0F4 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's just stupid. Yes, science fiction always has to include spaceships and aliens....or time travel. Just because Jurassic Park contains what YOU consider sci-fi elements, doesn't mean it's sci-fi. That would be like calling Harry Potter fantasy because it has dragons and magic. No I don't understand because you're not talking sense. You're like those idiots that call Die Hard a christmas movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park is, in fact, a sci fi movie. Science Fiction is fiction where science plays an integral role in the plot. Star Wars is NOT science fiction, it's Space Fantasy. Jurassic Park IS science fiction because science is integral to the plot. You can get rid of all the aliens, spaceships, and interstellar travel in Star Wars and still retain the basic plot threads. If you took out the science from Jurassic Park, you are left with a fundamentally different movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:b900:6625:85b8:1e2b:f4be:8390 (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this discussion be better off held on either the talk pages for the novel, the film or the franchise? (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 6 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't make any personal attacks. I was simply trying to correct a religious bigot that was spreading provable lies about me and my beliefs. It was stated that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. I replied that he said he didn't have wives. I said that his wife said he didn't have wives. and that his sons said he didn't have any wives. I tried to give proof, but they said it wasn't acceptable. Funny, seeing as the sources that they brought up as reliable were ones that supported their bigotry. Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Doubling down on the personal attacks in your unblock request is not going to get you unblocked. Huon (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't MAKE any personal attacks. Me and my religion was being attacked. I tried to correct that, but apparently, wikipedia doesn't care if someone's beliefs are belittled and lied about. I didn't call names. I stated fact. Please point out where I attacked anyone. also, is this block forever, or will I be able to edit again if I just sit back and allow myself and my beliefs to be attacked and not say anything about it ?Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Of course you made personal attacks. This calls another user bigoted and ignorant and a coward; I don't need to look at anything else. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:57, 9 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Is there any way for me to report religious bigotry ? Ah. So being attacked and facing bigotry is okay because I'm christian ? I'm blocked, while the other person isn't ? And that's fair to you ? You really want me to just sit back and take the bigotry ? I'm surprised that I wasn't racially attacked. So, will I be allowed to edit again as long as I don't say anything about being attacked or try to confront bigotry ? Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll be unblocked when you understand that personal attacks are never acceptable, concede that you indeed made some, and describe how one properly addresses editing disputes. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Fine. I fully admit that things that I've said could be taken as a personal attack, though I did not mean them to be seen as such. According to wikipedia, you resolve disputes by attempting to communicate with the person you're having the fight with. I tried to do this but was told that my sources weren't acceptable, even though my sources were the people that were being slandered and lied about. Trying to disolve a dispute is extremely confusing. In the future, I will just let people say whatever they want to say. Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. No no no. This is deeply concerning. You did mean your comment to be taken as a personal attack, come on. And you have deep misunderstandings about WP:RS. Look, it's time for you to step back and thoroughly review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. All of them. Then craft an acceptable unblock request. You've had FIVE already, none of which have been appropriate. You'll likely get only one more. WP:GAB can help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I've made a personal attack. My beliefs were spoken of in an attacking manner, but I should have approached the situation differently. To explain the situation, it was this...I tried to correct a mistake in the article about Later Day Saints beliefs. It was said that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. I removed this. When It was reverted, I tried to explain that I was correct. I explained that Joseph's wife said he didn't have multiple and that his sons said that he didn't have multiple wives. I said that even Joseph himself said he didn't have multiple wives. But this was said to be unacceptable. I should have left it at that and not said anything about the other person in such a personal manner. I've read how to do one of these unblock requests, so I hope I did it right this time. I'm sorry for this whole situation. Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reading through your talk page and some of your edits, you seem to have no idea how Wikipedia works. Please read through Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset, then make an appeal via WP:UTRS. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is also good reading, but it's not a policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2020 (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.

As promised, I have revoked talk page access. The reviewing administrator is free to reinstate it, even if they decline the unblock request. Although not part of the reason, it's very clear this editor still hasn't grasped WP:RS despite multiple people attempting to point them to this policy. If the current unblock request is declined, that leaves Spottedfeather with WP:UTRS. They will need to see a radically different approach to the unblock request, however. Nothing here has been anywhere near appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE your Email

I have read your email, you seem to be confused I have never interacted with you (at least via this account), I am not an admin so cannot do anything (i cannot evene see your UTRS appeals) Pinging admins to see if you've emailed them or are abusing the email function to gather random editors. @Yamla, 331dot, and NinjaRobortPirate:. Tknifton (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixing ping @NinjaRobotPirate:. Tknifton (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been emailed by this user. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also not been emailed by this user. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems weird that they have emailed me (a non-admin) of all people to help with their unblock and talked in the email as if I have interacted with them. Tknifton (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've now received an email. The user knows how they appeal their block. This isn't it. Email access revoked to prevent further abuse. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Note that I am not the original blocking admin here (that's Doug Weller, I just restricted talk page access and then eventually, email access. I see nothing in UTRS that would lead me to support an unblock, but don't object if you think it appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks. I've read so many of these, I had to go back and reread. TBH, me neither in the follow up replies. @Spottedfeather: Once again. Please read WP:RS and WP:DR and tell us how you failed to apply them to your editing before and how you would apply them going forward via UTRS. Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]