User talk:RazorThick

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! agtx 01:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agtx: Sir who are you and why have you invaded my talk space...? RazorThick (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another Wikipedia user who happened to see some of your edits. Your talk page exist for other users to communicate with you, so you should expect to see messages from others there. Accusing others of "invading" your talk space is not a great look and could be perceived as hostile, so I'd recommend avoiding that in the future. agtx 02:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agtx: All right then, see you around. Cheerio RaforThix \ 02:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NightHeron (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Excuse me, sir. there's no editing war. The guy who undid my edits said in didn't belong in the lead and I listened and put it deep down in the article. Immediately remove this false warning from my talk page. RaforThix \ 22:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd bothered to read my explanation of my initial removal that's on the article talk-page, you'd know that it was removed for several reasons, including WP:OR, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE. As a new editor to Wikipedia, you really should read up on Wikipedia policies rather than edit-warring and making unreasonable demands. Also read WP:ONUS, which says that if you add something to an article and one or more editors object and revert it, then you need to seek consensus on the talk-page. My last edit-summary asked you to do this. NightHeron (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Thank you. I have addressed your concerns on Moon's talk page in your post. Please respond to it if you could. RaforThix \ 22:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}.

Kuru (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the only black QB in the hall of fame, got in there due to affirmative action" is all I needed to see. Kuru (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reasons for the removal of my indefinite Wikipedia block are several. First, you may vehemently disagree with what I wrote on Warren Moon's talk page, but calling it a dog-whistle and giving me an indefinite ban instead of engaging in a discourse with me where you share your perspective and we talk about it is against the spirit of Wikipedia and its policy. It is clear the blocking admin disagreed with what I wrote on a talk page of an article, where debate is supposed to occur. But it was not written to blow a dog-whistle or to be racist, please read the whole sentence of what I wrote ("There is a strong reason to believe, based on all of the foregoing, that Moon, as the only black QB in the hall of fame, got in there due to affirmative action"), and then please read the rest of the paragraph for its proper context. I am not racist and what I wrote was not racist nor a dog-whistle worthy of an indefinite ban. It is an opinion I have, for which I feel there is substantial corroboration (i.e., that Moon is also the only hall of fame QB with a losing career win/loss record, and also happened to be on the losing end of the largest blown lead in NFL history, which happened in the playoffs to a backup QB). I feel an indefinite block was not justified in this circumstance as I have constructively contributed to many articles throughout my six months on Wikipedia. I have no animus towards the banning admin, though I believe this matter is properly settled in a respectful discussion on the article's talk page as I was doing, not by giving me an indefinite block and dismissing my points on the talk page as a dog-whistle. I ask that the block be removed so we can resolve this amicably and so I can continue constructively contributing to Wikipedia. Free speech is very important. I should be able to provide my point of view on the article's talk page, a point of view for which I provided facts and sources. And I should be able to do that without be indefinitely banned for dog-whistling. In terms of edit warring, I am not engaged in an edit war and have left the article the way it was, and was discussing the matter on the article's talk page when I was banned. RaforThix \ 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You clearly edit warred on Warren Moon as you made several reverts to re-instate the same material, and at one point used all caps in an edit summary. Both on that article and on White privilege you made changes without providing reliable sources to support your additions / changes. For biographies of living persons the use of reliable and independent sources is even more important, especially for these kinds of comments and repeated addition of unsourced content to a BLP (biography of a living person) often leads to blocks. I suggest reading this guide which describes how to make an unblock request before making another one, and also suggest focusing on your own edits instead of others. Future unblock requests should also address edits such as this one and it's edit summary. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:20, 10 May 2022 (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.

Do not make personal attacks against other editors, such as you did to Praxidicae. Doing so again will lead to your talk page access being revoked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022 (2)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]