User talk:Cameek33

Welcome!

Hello, Cameek33, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard (Beebo) Russell, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Andrewgprout (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard (Beebo) Russell

The article Richard (Beebo) Russell has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history 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. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Bamyers99. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to BAMN have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse racism

Do you seriously think that "end to ignorenot suchto focus on the disparities involved in the exercise of power and authority, whichalthough scholarsa argueprivilege constitutenot anexclusively essentialheld componentby of racismWhites" is a correction of bad grammar? Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed vandalism by user" - do you seriously think that's an appropriate edit summary in view of your edits? Please restore the maintenance templates and protection notices that you've removed while you're fixing your edits. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dennis" is the reference's name - please don't mess with it until you understand reference formatting while using named refs. And please use the ttalkpage to discuss your changes or to ask about things like "Dennis" as a named ref - Dennis, R.M. (2004). "Racism". In Kuper, A.; Kuper, J. The Social Science Encyclopedia, Volume 2 (3rd ed.). London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 1-13-435969-1. And finally, stop with the vandalism claims in edit summaries Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

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 Reverse racism, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Reverse racism. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change "United States" to "United Stated"? Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello, I have fixed the previous errors surrounding the current academic consensus of "reverse racism" with respect to the cited literature. You do not own this idea and do not rein control over it's discussion. I will continue redditing this article to reflect the correct informational until the end of time, and will open new accounts to see that you do not dictate solely your opinion on the matter...

Thanks... -Cody Cameek33 (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally responding here. Your edits have introduced numerous grammatical and spelling errors, and you clearly are having trouble with understanding how references are done. My concern is that you've been making a hash of the article, and then reverting to the hash while claiming vandalism. That's not on. You need to slow down and edit responsibly. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acroterion, you are obviously unclear on the differences between "references" and "citations". I have provided correct citations, albeit halfassed, there were never any "references".

I am trying to edit this article correctly, but am forced to start over each time you vandalize my information.

Have you actually looked at your edits and their spelling? Stop with the vandalism accusations, you're just making work for editors who have to clean up behind your edits. Look at the bottom of the page, the references are there for all to see, at least until you started removing the ones whose formatting you didn't understand. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello,

You cannot use shotty citations which do not reflect the correct interpretation of the study to fit your specific ideaology. I have fixed ththiththis information relative to the citations used and updated information that was unclear or lacking supported by my own citations. Thank you and please lock this article from further edits proceeding mine. Cameek33 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are what look like vandalism, with "United Stated" and the word salad I quoted farther up the page. You're the one who's been changing the content to reflect your personal views - I've just been trying to clean up the terrible spelling, grammar, and disruption of existing content and citations. The burden is on you to justify your changes and to obtain consensus. Use the talkpage to propose changes, and please start spelling things carefully Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your edits don't even look professional. Go learn how to spell before even attempting to help. Besides, you should understand the meaning of "vandalism" before calling other people that. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive criticism! My misspellings were likely a result of the autocorrect on my mobile phone, what is the excuse for your poor grammar and sentence structure? Cameek33 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Your edits to BAMN include adding obviously false information and lies in edit summaries. Your edits to Reverse racism include abominable spelling and grammar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen, you pedantic old man! Could you please provide specific examples of the "obviously false information" I provided? I was unaware that you were a scholar in the subject, and I provided all my citations. Thanks! Cameek33 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 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).

Cameek33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was permanently blocked quite a while ago and have learned my lesson, albeit that I still feel I was unfairly blocked due to a philosophical disagreement and not the validity of my edits or their sources. If unblocked, I hope to return as a contributing member to this community, making sure my edits are represented as accurately as possible. Thank you for your consideration. Cameek33 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you learned your lesson, but then say that you think you were unfairly blocked. (you also use a personal attack above) If you think that your edits to BAMN were appropriate, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Not to mention the atrocious grammar and spelling errors- if this is caused by your use of a phone, you should revise how you access Wikipedia to edit. These things indicate that you haven't really learned anything, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 27 May 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.

Lol oh well.. Cameek33 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]