User talk:Lincean

Welcome!

Hello, Lincean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to LGBT rights opposition does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Mr X 20:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lincean, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Lincean! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 13:34, Friday, December 27, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

BRD

A widely accepted practice, especially when editing controversial articles, is to follow WP:BRD. Forcing you view into an article, when other editors object to it, is not how Wikipedia works. We work by consensus. Please use the talk page to sway others over to your reasoning, or yield to the existing consensus. - Mr X 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:BRD is great. Especially the discussion part. Of which, you and others were failing to do. You haven't responded to my remarks on the talk page. I do not expect immediate response, as we all have things to do and there are no real deadlines. But you had plenty of time, well over a month, and continued to edit elsewhere. It seemed that you were no longer were interested in discussion. But I may be wrong, and if so, just when were you planning on responding?

I haven't 'forced' anything, as the change that I proposed was discussed. If anyone is forcing anything it is the people, such as yourself, who raised an objection and did not bother to make a counter response. By holding up discussion, one holds up reaching a resolution, and therefore edits.

It seems that BRD has worked in that my edit finally got you to respond in the discussion. Hopefully now you will engage with what I wrote and a resolution can be reached. Lincean (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to repeat the same arguments. For example, you keep mentioning the word "bigot" but the word in question is "bigotry". Those words have different meanings, and the content you wish to remove is the latter. It is a widely-held view among those who study the LGBT rights movement that bigotry is one of the reasons why some people oppose LGBT rights. A few sources:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. It's rather absurd to assert that bigotry is not one of the reasons for opposing LGBT rights, when organizations like AFTAH and Westboro Baptist Church exist.- Mr X 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: If it seems that I repeat the same arguments it is because they were misunderstood and not as of yet dealt with. To repeat it again so as to be clear: opinions should not be stated as facts. Moral views are opinions. Using "bigotry" involves a moral view, and therefore should not be used in Wikipedia's voice.
As for the difference between "bigot" and "bigotry," that is a distinction without much practical difference. "Bigotry" came from "bigot," and is defined as that which is characterizes a bigot. Even still, "bigotry" is still a value-laden word. It is highly subjective, imprecise, and contentious. It is a term of abuse. It connotes a value system from which to pass moral judgement from. Take a look at WP:LABEL, and you can see "bigot" listed as an example. Take a look at the other words as well and it is clear that "bigotry" would not be out of place on that list.
I do not see how citing those sources helps your cause here. Academic sources can and do contain opinions. These opinions can be cited in Wikipedia even, but they need to be cited as opinions, not facts. Especially if they involve a value judgement.
Regarding the two groups you cited, please see WP:OUTRAGE. Even if a group may seem morally offensive, you still have to be neutral. Many people say Hitler was evil. That, however, does not justify Wikipedia taking a side as to what counts as "evil."
Additionally see WP:IMPARTIAL. By using such words with normative implications, one necessarily engages in a dispute. Even if you think there is no normative implications, the tone of "bigotry" does not pass the test. You might want to take a look at this essay Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. Lincean (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to continue this discussion, but would you copy the last couple of posts (including the sources I cited) to the article talk page so that other editors can participate?- Mr X 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is continued here: Talk:LGBT_rights_opposition#Reasons. Lincean (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list your reasons for opposing the use of the word "bigotry" in a non-TL:DR format on LGBT rights opposition

Hey Lincean, just wanted to check in and ask if you could list your reasons for opposing the use of the word "bigotry" on the RfC discussion without saying that you've already discussed them in the Reasons thread? I am also curious to learn what exactly your opposition is besides your repeated claims of NPOV-violation. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at LGBT rights opposition. The next time you remove 'bigotry' from this article I will invite you to ANI so that your POV-pushing editing history can be examined. - Mr X 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:, what I am doing is removing a POV-loaded word. I am not inserting any POV, commentary, or personal analysis into that or any other article. If you think I am POV-pushing, inserting commentary, or personal analysis into articles, tell me what is the POV I am pushing, what is the commentary/analysis. I would like to know this. Since I do not see that I done anything wrong, I do not fear your threats. Lincean (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because this is my home IP address. If you would like me to send you privately any information that can help, I will do so. Lincean (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. If your IP address is blocked and you think the issue requires privacy, please make use of WP:UTRS. Huon (talk) 15:04, 15 May 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.

What is happening?

@Bbb23:, I see that you have blocked me, may I please have an explanation as to what is going on? If you would like me to confirm anything information about myself privately, I would do so. Lincean (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted with another CheckUser and there is a possibility you are using this IP legitimately. I've therefore given you the benefit of the doubt and unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, thank you! Lincean (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock. The reason for my block was that I was accused of being a sock puppet. The reasons why I should be unblocked is as follows:

I am not a sock puppet. I have offered to verify my identity privately or any information that I could provided to confirm that I am not related to the other accounts. No one has requested any info. If there is a way for me to commit to an identity or provide other evidence that can show that I am not a sock puppet, I will do so. Any similarity of me to Acoma Magic or whoever is a coincidence. The similarities s presented are not that specific anyway. There are times when people get mixed up, and this is one of them
I have not made any disruptive edits. I have read the polices and guidelines and try to adhere to them. If there is something that I have did wrong, I would like an explanation please. I do not want to violate the polices of Wikipedia. The incident that I believe prompted MrX to file a investigation against me was a dispute over the word "bigotry." I have given many reasons for this as you can see here. I believed the way the word was used violates WP:NPOV. If I have made mistakes, I will avoid making them again if someone could explain them to me. Most of what I have done on Wikipedia was make small fixes, that I the main reason why I made this account. I was also bogged down in a debate over the word "bigotry." I did not think that it would last as long as it did considering that that word is used as an example of something not to use here.

I would like to also know, if it is possible for me to make another account, as I not whoever I was accused to be.

Thank you,

Lincean (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence is convincing enough. PhilKnight (talk) 01:55, 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.

Standard offer request

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).

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

Request reason:

I am making a request to be unblocked from Wikipedia by applying for the WP:OFFER. There are a couple of reasons why I would like to be unblocked. First, I am not a sock of Acoma Magic or anyone else. This is my one and only account, and the accusation was a mistake. Unfortunately, there is no practical way for me to prove this, but just note that doppelgängers do happen. If there is any proof that I could give, I would give it. The fact that I am seeking to use the same account rather than creating other ones should be seen as a sign that I have intention of following Wikipedia's policies. The second reason is that I did not abuse any of Wikipedia's polices. This is not to say that all the edits that I have made were the best, I have been corrected on things, and I am willing to learn, just that I have no intention in disrupting the Wikipedia project. If I have done something wrong, and if someone could explain to me what I am doing wrong, I will listen and avoid doing any such behavior. If I did something wrong I apologize, but please let me know what it is. I have been engaged in talk pages in the past because I believe in dialog in solving issues instead of things like edit wars. In sum, I would like to be unblocked because I desire to improve Wikipedia and want to respect the rules. I have no desire to sock-puppet, that is why I want to use this account. I understand that I have no right to edit, and will be grateful for reconsideration of the block. Lincean (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is 100% clear that this account is a sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:48, 6 January 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.

@JamesBWatson: With all do respect, you are making a misjudgement. And for the sake of argument, say I am a sock-puppeteer, is there any reason why I can't be granted a Standard Offer? Lincean (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, because unblocking an editor who is willing to lie to get unblocked is a good way of getting one more editor who can't be trusted in the future. And as for your claim that I am "making a misjudgement", if I spelt out all the evidence, you would think "Oh my god, how can I have been so careless as to give myself away so obviously?" but for obvious reasons I am not going to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: If I was a sock, then why am I fighting to keep this account instead of moving on to another? I do have access to other non-proxy IP addresses and could skirt the rules if I wanted. I am choosing not to do that, out of respect for Wikipedia's rules. This behavior does not fit the M.O. of sock-puppeteers who move from account to account. If admitting to being a sock would grant me a return, then I would not do it as it is not true. I also think you underestimate the likely-hood of similar people. Lincean (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]