User talk:ElliotNettles

April 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Momoiro Clover Z has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Momoiro Clover Z was changed by ElliotNettles (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859087 on 2015-04-17T07:16:07+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 07:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history at Footjob 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Footjob, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care about these photos so much? They are unrefined and they are disgusting so they should be removed. Did you take these photos or something? ElliotNettles (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]

As Cullen328 has told you, some of our articles have pictures and content that certain people find offensive. Being offensive is not grounds for removal. You can use the article's talk page if you think the photo is irrelevant to the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you did take those photos? Is that why they seem to mean so much to you? I would like to have these photos removed immediately. I do not see why that is such a big deal for you or Cullen328. ElliotNettles (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)EllliotNettles[reply]

You can see who uploaded the photo here. And every day we have people demanding photos be removed from a wide variety of articles because the photos personally offend them. Content is not removed because some people don't want to see pictures of penises, vaginas, breasts, Muhammad, or whatever. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, NeilN. Please just take these obnoxious photos down. I want these photos removed for several reasons so please have a heart and take them down. I do not want to declare a war against the Footjob page. I am simply here to offer my contributions to the encyclopedia. ElliotNettles (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]

As you have offered no reason for removal based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, any removal will simply be reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care about this so much? Just let me take those stupid photos down and move on from it. ElliotNettles (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]

You're just repeating yourself now so I'm done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. Because clearly you are too much of an imbecile to actually answer my question on why you seem to care about these photos so much. They are unrefined and distasteful and so are you. ElliotNettles (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]

If you don't like these images, then maybe stay away from these topics. Of course, for me, it's hard to do so on IRC. As others have said, Wikipedia is not censored -- it's unfortunate, but that's the way encylopedias run. DivineAlpha 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot, I understand that you want to remove these images from sexuality articles, but you need to understand the position we take on these. While these photos may not be ideal, they are the best we have. We have a lot of articles which include images which people may find offensive - the Muhammed article was mentioned above, but similarly articles about murder, rape, torture, climate change, Satanism, etc etc. As an encyclopaedia we have a duty to inform our readers, and this means using illustrations where helpful. I for one would think a footjob illustration helpful on the grounds that not many people would even think of it as a sexual activity. Now, illustrations about such topics should always be to add knowledge, not just for illustration and certainly not for purience. But we must also remember that what we, as sexually-educated people, may find obvious may not be so obvious to others. Illustrations on sexual articles are useful, and a low quality image is better than no image at all. In many cases drawings have been used rather than photos, as drawings are considered to be less controversial.

All this being said, consensus on such issues can change. However when consensus has been clear - that images are desirable - simply removing them will get you nowhere, as your recent block has shown. Please use the articles' talk pages to petition for the images to be removed (I can certainly see an argument that two images on the Footjob article is overkill). Perhaps you can sway others to agree with you. But you won't do it by edit warring or calling them disgusting, you'll need properly reasoned arguments as to why the policy on these images should be changed. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, so something being offensive is not an acceptable argument for why something shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

Please take your brief block as time to reconsider your methods, and come back a more mellow contributor. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not engage in personal attacks on editors as you did against NeilN directly above. This is a collaborative project, and insults and speculation about motives without evidence is counterproductive. I care about the integrity of the encyclopedia, not about this topic or these photos. Your personal opinion will not affect the presence of these photos. Only those arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be persuasive here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not attacking anyone and I fail to see how you perceive it as attacking. I asked genuine questions and stated the problem with the photos that are on that page. It is not my fault you all fail to recognize that. ElliotNettles (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]

You called another editor an "imbecile" and now you are claiming you weren't attacking anyone? That is ludicrous on the face of it. Please stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because he fails to answer any of my questions and actually do something about the problem that I am faced with. Why are you both so defensive and sensitive? I am simply giving my contributions and you are both shooting them down. For what cause, Cullen? Tell me this. ElliotNettles (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]

I answered your question in an early reply: "You can use the article's talk page if you think the photo is irrelevant to the subject." mattbuck gave you some more advice. I'll just add that your "problem" is not a problem for Wikipedia, according to its policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for younger editors

Please read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. I do not think that it is wise for you to disclose your age on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Thank you for sharing. Though I do not really feel much concern in stating my age. I will take this into consideration however. ElliotNettles (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles[reply]