User talk:FauXnetiX

Welcome!

Hello, FauXnetiX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FauXnetiX, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FauXnetiX! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bella and the Bulldogs, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Bella and the Bulldogs. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Amaury (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bella and the Bulldogs 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} 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo P. Curiel

You should not have re-inserted the material I removed from that article. Take a look at WP:BRD. You Boldly added it, which is appropriate if something is not controversial. I reverted it, indicating that it is controversial. Now we need to discuss it at the talk page. "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." Another problem: I explained in my edit summary why I was removing it; you offered no edit summary rationale for restoring it. Since this article is a WP:BLP and that it is a controversial subject, it is important that consensus be sought before adding controversial material. Please undo your restoration of the material and come to the article's talk page to discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything that wasn't already included in the referenced article. If you have a problem with the words of the author of a referenced article then you need to discuss whether or not the article is relevant, NOT what can be included from the referenced work. As it is now the work is cited and I will included full quotes as needed to ensure that the words of the author are fairly and accurately represented. If I need to revert your edits I will continue to do so. The article was deemed relevant, thus the quote from the article is also relevant.FauXnetiX (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I doubt that the existence of a footnote in a Wikipedia article gives permission to include anything and everything from the footnoted source. Nice try though.😊Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't then it's just cherry picking to construct a narrative in hopes that readers will not go to the source.FauXnetiX (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that we picked out something Gonzales said against Trump, without also picking out something he said supportive of Trump. That's a much better argument that you ought to make at the article talk page. You ought to explain there how you picked out this particular pro-Trump statement by Gonzales. If you revert yourself and make that argument, I have an open mind about maybe agreeing with you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll jump on the talk page then.FauXnetiX (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :::If you are arguing that EVERYTHING that is included in ANY cited source can and should be added to a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The material needs to be relevant to the subject. More importantly, Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus will determine whether the addition is appropriate. Consensus is determined at the article's talk page If you feel you can defend this addition, go to the talk page and explain why - and accept the verdict of consensus there. About your threat to continue re-adding it if it is reverted again: please see WP:Edit warring. I have not removed it again, specifically to avoid getting into an edit war, but if other people remove it you would keep re-adding it at your peril. Beware of WP:3RR. Don't edit war. Come to the talk page and explain why you think it should be retained. And you'll need a better argument than "Well, it was there in the source." --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page.FauXnetiX (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for anti-semitic vandalism. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CIreland (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since I was, in good faith, following the wishes of Jeffrey Goldberg as indicated in the wiki article: "Author Jeffrey Goldberg said that he hoped that Jews could reclaim the symbolism in the same way as LGBT people had reclaimed the word 'queer'".[1]

Decline reason:

No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:33, 9 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

No is not a reason.

Decline reason:

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. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:23, 9 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently I was blocked for editing a wiki in such a way as to correspond with a cited author's wish to reclaim the ((())) symbol. If that is not okay then I understand and won't do it again.

Decline reason:

What you did constituted anti-Semitic vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I disagree. I'm helping reclaim the symbol for my people. If that is not okay then I won't do it again, but as I said my edit was in good faith based on the statement in the article: "Author Jeffrey Goldberg said that he hoped that Jews could reclaim the symbolism in the same way as LGBT people had reclaimed the word 'queer'".[1]

Decline reason:

By that logic, you also engaged in "the online equivalent of tagging a building with anti-Semitic graffiti or taunting someone verbally". Huon (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2016 (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.

In its context, the edit probably wasn't intended as vandalism, and may not have been intended as antisemitic. However, there are still at least two problems. (1) It was likely to be perceived as antisemitic and as vandalism, and if you didn't realise that then you showed poor judgement. (2) Editing Wikipedia in order to "[help] reclaim the symbol for [your] people" is using Wikipedia to promote a cause, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and yes, it is certainly "not okay". If you can show an appreciation of those two facts then I will be willing to support unblocking you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

No I didn't. That logic doesn't follow from my statement nor does it follow from the statement of Jeffrey Goldberg.FauXnetiX (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have now made five unblock requests which fail to recognise the problems with the editing which led to the block. I tried to give you every chance by posting the message above, but to no avail. (I will also warn you that you post another unblock request which fails to address the reason for the block, it is very likely that your talk page access will be removed, as such requests simply waste time which administrators could more fruitfully use on other tasks). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2016 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I did indeed answer the questions above posted by someone who did not respond to my answers, so here they are again: 1) I understand why I was blocked. This was indicated when I said it was a good faith mistake based on the words of Jeffrey Goldberg, but I understand why I was blocked (posted above)in addition to promoting a cause (which I did not think about and was not listed in any message other than yours, my mistake). 2)I said I will not do it again, also posted above. 3) I will make meaningful contributions as I have done. I appreciate the clarity in your response. Thanks.FauXnetiX (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I think there is a way forward here, as long as you understand why the edits were inappropriate. They did not reflect good judgement, but you should be allowed to improve and move forward. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was in the middle of declining this unblock request with basically exactly the reasons JamesBWatson gave for his decline. Think hard about what you say in your next unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If unblocked - what pages do you intend to edit? SQL ^{Query me!} 04:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that interests me really. There's nothing I'm interested in editing as of right now though. Consensus seems to have been reached on the last one.