User talk:2601:644:4780:8240:5419:9049:2CF6:A460

Italic text== October 2023 ==

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dylanvt (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not vandalizing anything, I will notify admins if you edit warring if you continue to add irrelevant sections to articles to fit agendas. 2601:644:4780:8240:5419:9049:2CF6:A460 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I did clearly explain my actions and did not simply close the request. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)}} No you did not, I asked you to explain how those edits do not fit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which it is clearly stated "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." the section is listed under Themes, homages, and references specifically contained within the sources cited "Doc Hammer: We have no position on it except that we do want to help the “out of the closet is the best way to be” mentality. But it’s as gay-friendly as it is straight male-friendly and I’m not sure it’s that either. It’s not a position that we’re taking. We paint a broad, veiled world and everybody inside of it has their good qualities and bad qualities and also gay. Because that is the world that we live in." https://web.archive.org/web/20200412013714/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-venture-bros-talk-gay-characters_n_1659006 that makes this entire section a clear violation of NPOV and written to support an ideology rather than of any importance again violated NPOV and if its not then clearly there should be thousands of sections for every subcategory of type of person, Straight representation, Afrcian representation, Native American, Indigenous, European representation, etc et al. that is patently absurd, so please explain why this one section is special, or are you giving me the greenlight to make those hundreds of subsections? 2601:644:4780:8240:5419:9049:2CF6:A460 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an unblock request is not to review the merits of your edits. It's to review the actions of the blocked user. I declined your request for the reason indicated, not out of hand as you claim. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And no, you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. There are proper channels to challenge article content without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is, are you kidding me? If I am reverting vandalism then you have no right to ban me for edit warring - because by definition it is not edit warring because, stated by edit warring - reverting vandalism is not edit warring, and again you cannot point to how what I did was not removing vandalism. So I am asking for clarification then that if that content is not a violation of NPOV which would thereby make it vandalism then how could me possibly creating sections for every single type of reference be 'disrupting wikipedia' as you say? You can't have it both ways.


 * Pings don't work unless you sign your post. I believe my decline speaks for itself and I have no additional comment. If I have erred, another admin will unblock you. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a sad position for an admin to hold. I know I've erred and I can't refute what you're saying so I will just leave it to someone who will either agree with my bias or realize I'm wrong and unblock you. 2601:644:4780:8240:5419:9049:2CF6:A460 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)