User talk:Profane Username

December 2017

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Mifter (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing content. I changed the word 'trash' to 'speculation' so it would not seem like an attack. Thank you for the suggestion. Profane Username (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have left a note on the talk page reminding everyone to try and remain civil, I know this is a contentious topic and hope the discussion is productive. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overdid it a bit. Some of what you removed was simply criticism of his argument.Profane Username (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my comment as follows (I hope we can agree this is not an attack, but let me know if you think otherwise): It is not a "meaningless detail" that Clinton received more votes than Trump. This "King-Queen of California/New York/Texas" argument is entirely misguided. What you are effectively arguing is that because you live in Wyoming, your vote should be weighted 3 times as much as a person who lives in California/New York/Texas. Further, even if someone accepted your dubious normative argument, it is a matter of plain fact that Clinton received 3 million more votes, and that this is notable. It is not "notable" to start hypothesizing about what would have happened if you took out the most populous state of the Union. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. It is not a hypothesis or a speculation that Clinton received more votes: it is verifiable, encyclopedic fact, unlike the speculative claims you are making. Profane Username (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

After seeing the additional tweaks you made I'm no longer concerned. Thanks for your willingness to work with me, I appreciate it (and hope you have a Merry Christmas if you celebrate it). Best, Mifter (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Merry Christmas, Mifter. Profane Username (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Profane Username, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mifter (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you never formally received a "welcome message", you may find some of these links/information useful. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, which I will try to look at. Thanks as well for the welcome, and, again, for your helpful guidelines on keeping criticism civil. Profane Username (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Requests

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).

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

Request reason:

Why was I blocked? I was blocked without good cause. I am a productive contributor.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock. —DoRD (talk) 14:01, 26 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

impossible. What sort of star chamber is this? In addition, my edits have all been productive contributions.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:38, 26 December 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.