User talk:Cpurcellartwork

March 2018

Hello, I'm Daiyusha. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Whitewashing in film 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. Please note that using "yellow" to refer to people is considered derogatory in many countries. Refrain from using it. Daiyusha (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cpurcellartwork (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Daiyusha Hello, I'm cpurcellartwork. You claim that using "yellow" to refer to people is considered derogatory in many countries. I will refrain from using the term "yellow" if and only if other contributors refrain from using other colors to describe people. It is unacceptable to deny the use of "yellow" while allowing the use of "white", "black", or any other color used to describe people's skin. In case you were unaware, describing someone's skin as being "yellow" is commonly understood to mean people of Oriental descent. It is not derogatory nor profane, and anyone who has a problem with the use of the term should likewise condemn the use of other colors to describe people.Cpurcellartwork (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about the bias people show towards certain groups of people but unfortunately we live in a world where things are as they are, you could revolt about it anywhere else, but Wikipedia is not the place. I only posted this message to you because i saw "yellow" being present in List of ethnic slurs.

Also East asian people are not exactly yellow either, a bit of research tells me that using yellow was because of western propaganda, thus it became a derogatory term.

I'm not entirely sure even i am correct, so i'll ping a more experienced user User:Kohoutek1138 to resolve this issue. Daiyusha (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cpurcellartwork (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Daiyusha You say "Also East asian people are not exactly yellow either" - do you think that Caucasians are 'exactly' white? The only people I have encountered with truly 'white' skin are albinos. If your problem is that the color 'yellow' doesn't apply to people of Oriental descent, you should also find fault with calling people 'white', as that term does not correctly describe the skin color of people of European heritage.[reply]

The first thing to note, Cpurcellartwork, is that the material you are trying to add to the Whitwashing in Film article is unsourced and therefore not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. That is why Daiyusha has rightly reverted your edits three times now. It reads as being your own opinion and therefore is what we call original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability: the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability.

If you attempt to re-add this unsourced material to the Whitwashing in Film article again, without providing a reliable, third-party inline reference to support it, it will be considered edit warring. This is greatly frowned upon in the Wikipedia community and may result in disciplinary steps being taken (see the policy on edit warring).

On a more general note, using terms like "yellow", "black" or "white" to denote skin colour can be, and often is, seen as derogatory by many people. It is far better to use literal, objective definitions, by using the more encyclopedic terms Asian, African-American or Caucasian. If you really feel strongly about this, feel free to start a discussion on the Whitwashing in Film talk page, here, which other editors can weigh in on. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If terms like "yellow" and "black" are considered derogatory and should not be used, "white" should not be used and in fact, the term "whitewashing" is derogatory in and of itself. I modified my addition, let me know if it is acceptable as I removed my opinionated statements. Consider the phrase "In the silent epic drama film, black characters were played by white actors in blackface." This is the appropriate edit, rather than saying "In the silent epic drama film, African-American characters were played by white actors in blackface." You should not mix terminology. If African-American is the correct term for this sentence, then it should mention the ethnic background of "white actors" i.e. Caucasian or European-American, or whatever term is correct for the "white" actors. Keep in mind that not all African-Americans are black, and not all blacks are African-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpurcellartwork (talk • contribs) 18:02, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not suitable, because it is still not supported by a reliable, third party reference (see WP:Identifying reliable sources for guidance). Please take this discussion to the article talk page and refrain from making these disruptive edits -- they constitute edit warring. Also, please stop changing African-American to "black" or Asian to "yellow", since there is no editor consensus for those changes. If you revert my edit again, I will report you to the Wiki Administrators, which may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using Color to refer to a group

This is a proposed solution: 1. Start a discussion on the talk page of Whitewashing in film, the discussion would be regarding your point: being entirely color neutral. 2. People will debate, and would come to a consensus. It may or may not be to your liking, but you will have a chance to convey your opinion freely without being reported.

Editing the page directly and adding controversial information is not advised, use the talk page to discuss the opinion then implement it.

Wikipedia has remained a surprisingly reliable source of information despite being open because there are set of rules and regulations set in place, and a large community of dedicated editors who ensure those are implemented. As long as you follow the guidelines you are free to edit, and if you want to make some edit that breaks the rules, there is always the talk page where you have a chance to get an approval to do so. Daiyusha (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring/Conduct issues

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you have been involved. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User:Erik, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Daiyusha (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 24 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

My username, cpurcellartwork, does not "give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website" - I am an artist, and my name is Connor Purcell, thus cpurcellartwork is my username. It is also my Google, Facebook, Yahoo username and does not represent or pretend to represent a group, organization or website. You say "be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose." I have not done any "promotional editing". 207.172.249.243 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While I agree that you have not promoted your artwork on Wikipedia other than through the username, there are further problems. These include edit warring, personal attacks such as this, block evasion and a thorough misunderstanding of what is original research. You have addressed none of that. On top of all that, I do agree with Orangemike that this username itself is promotional. Huon (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2018 (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.

Block evasion

This user was found to be evading their block, in violation of WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK, to continue their inappropriate edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cpurcellartwork and the numerous commentary over at User talk:Bloodybrilliantmusic. As such, I am reblocking this account to indicate these continued violations. --Yamla (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has indeed engaged in block evasion, as 207.172.249.243 (talk · contribs). However, Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk · contribs) was arguably not an example of block evasion, as the second block on this account was for the inappropriate username and the user was encouraged to register a new account. However, given the behaviour on that account which was monumentally inappropriate, as it had been here, there's simply no reason to ever unblock this user in my opinion. --Yamla (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]