User talk:Dontlikeitinthetuchis

November 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Derek Jeter, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats silly, whats the likelihood that anyone at the sandbox will be willing to discuss the expansion of the Derek Jeter article to reflect the neutral view of the guy?--Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there needs to be more made of his limited range, try to be constructive. Bring reliable sources, as in not blog posts of people hating on him. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't hate Jeter (and I dont hate you).as a matter of fact i have the most upmost respect for him as both a player and a person. however, the article is lacking something at this time, and i am bringing it to the attention to the editors of the page. thats it. please assume some good faith. --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you hate him, I mean that alot of the material on the web out there wouldn't be considered reliable sourcing.; Calling it a "joke" violates NPOV. Find some sources and propose inclusion on the talk page so we can discuss it. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no sir, the fact that the critisism of his winning the Gold glove is not included in the article violates NPOV.i initiated the discussion on the talk page. perhaps anohter editor or myself will search for proper sourcing. --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to be more specific about what facts you want to add to the article, and what reliable sources confirm those facts, before any meaningful discussion can happen. The comment that is now on the talk page does not have anything in it to discuss. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Derek Jeter. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anothter silly template. i have not attacked one editor. you're the one attacking, by telling me to stop attacking me. you better stop or i'll plop one of those templates on your pretty talk page. --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, this is not a template, but a personal third warning. Your choices are (a) speak politely to other users, or (b) be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

I won't template you... but I noticed that your off-color albeit funny username might be a little problematic. I don't mind the language, but the anti-anal sex or potential anti-gay bias which could be read into the name might be offensive. Of course, it will only offend those who know what it means, but anyway... Please read over WP:Username , particularly Wikipedia:Username#Dealing_with_inappropriate_usernames this part and see what you think. It might be a good idea to figure this out now, before you establish a hopefully long history on the site. Ocaasi (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Congregation Or Chadash are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 14:56, 11 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry. I promise if unblocked, I will behave more appropriatly

Decline reason:

Between your username and your edits, there's no indication that you'll be a useful Wikipedia contributor. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 11 November 2010 (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.

Just a suggestion, you may want to reviewq the guide to appealing blocks and also a different username. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no fair! i have never lied and there is nothing in my history indicating that i am a liar. why cant i be forgiven? other editors have done far worse with far less recriminations. I will change my user name if it bothers anyone. but please, unblock me.--Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to review the appealing a block guide. One thing that shows you are here to build a encyclopedia is transplanting a page on yours here and making significant improvement on it. It helps demonstrate your good faith and a lot of admin will view that as proof you are here to help and not just talk about or add out of policy additions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this editor getting another shot, though briefer if necessary. DLIITT, it's important to realize that Wikipedia operates on some basic principles that make it possible for an enormous variety of people to interact regularly and civilly in the interest of making the encyclopedia better. Generally, personal opinions of editors about subjects, and especially negative personal opinions about controversial subjects, require a fair deal better handling than your previous edits.

You might be used to other internet forums where the language is pretty free-flying and people just roll with everything in good humor; there's some of that here, but not when it involves offending editors or making comments that target groups. FWIW, I didn't think your edit to Or Chadash was blatantly out of bounds--it was a question about why we have coverage of single-sex or other unique prayer communities. But while you're editing (if you're editing), keep in mind that people you are interacting with might have vastly different beliefs than yours. It goes better if you can express your questions without marginalizing, deprecating, or bothering anyone else.

Why don't you take a short break, think of a different name, read through our basic policies WP:5P and try again shortly. Good luck... Ocaasi (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think we're being a little too sensitive here. i dont dislike anyone (outside of Hitler, Stalin, Mel Gibson, and the other usual suspects), nor did any of my edits evince a dislike for anyone. we should be able to discuss a topic without getting our panties in a bunch. --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DLIITT, if I started an account with the username Idontlikeyamakas and then wound up on the talk page of Israel saying, why does this place even have an article, it's in violation of international laws and shouldn't even be a state (not my opinion, btw), you would probably be concerned or offended. Just because a particular thing doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it's the same for others. You just showed up here. Take it down a little and you'll find plenty of freedom to express opinions about how to improve articles and edit constructively. Ocaasi (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are making an irrelevant arguement, my friend. i have never argued for the deletion of articles on gay synagouges. the phenomenon clearly exists and is notable. i merely requested the artcicle be updated with the relevant literature regarding the critisism of categorizing congregations by their sexual preference. --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if it were true, however, you went considerably beyond asking for a dispassionate review of the literature on same-sex congregations by writing "It does not make sense for people to congregate according to their sexual preferences. Should we have articles on tuna fish synagogues for congregations of people who like tuna fish?" So the analogy may be imperfect, but it's darn pretty close, and I think the point stands regardless. If you want to keep editing, you will probably have to change your name and your editing approach, at least to scrape off the rougher bits. Whether you want to do so is up to you, but it's not clear you'll be able edit here if you don't. Ocaasi (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i was bit too hyperbolic there. sorry about that. but i was trying to make a valid point. i will be smoother around the edges from here on out. i will also change my user name if i would just know how to.--Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely help. You should read over WP:BADNAME which explains how to switch from one username to another. That can happen once an admin (which I am not) reviews your block. You may need to repost the unblock template, or leave a message at User_talk:Hell_in_a_Bucket's page and ask what to do next. I'd highly suggest reading over WP:5P and WP:Civil, coming up with your new username and running it by someone here, and then thinking of a few articles you might want to improve. Anything towards that, whether content ideas or sources would be a great way to get back towards editing well. Let me know if you have any questions, Ocaasi (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry?[edit]

I think it should be fairly evident that this account is being operated by an editor with some experience, and is a multiple account of some sort. The account's second edit identifies a template, and discusses the sandbox; the summary for the third edit discusses Twinkle; the summary for its fifth edit includes a block threat. The editing behavior generally is not consistent with being a new user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it's a possibility. Or the editor has simply hung out as an i.p. or lurked for a while. It happens, too. Either way, I think we wait until s/he expresses interest in coming back on, with a new name, etc. and then keep a little watch on the account as we would any other. If an SP/I is in order, I wouldn't know where to start. Ocaasi (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]