User talk:Ranleewright

Homosexuality article
The one take away I got from our discussion on Violence, is that there simply is no content discussing women and therefore the header title is simply not accurate to the content yet. So I have adjusted the title to reflect the current content. As that section will most likely be expanded the header title may eventually return.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point on women, in regard to the references given in the article, but the discussion is on the definition of Hate Crime and Victim as explained in the FBI reports. The way the entry stands makes it look like all attacks against gay men were physical attacks, when the definition of victim in the FBI reports clearly states these are attacks against people, businesses and society etc. The presentation of the statistics as written or referenced from other material in regard to the same statistics is misleading, meaning of misleading, that these were all physical attacks against gay men when that is clearly not the case. I have brought this to the attention of the editor(s) multiple times and they seem to be skirting the issue, only editing to make the words hate crime and victim less clear, still making it seem these were physical crimes against individuals. Even putting the extremely physical hate crime of a gay man who was tied to a fence and murdered some time back to emphasise the direction of that part of the entry on Wikipedia. This is more like sensationalist journalism in a rag newspaper or media outlet, specializing in sensationalism or gossip. I would assume Wikipedia would have higher standards than that, more akin to a encyclopedia, seeking a more scholarly outcome to the entries in Wikipedia and the other media connected in the various sub projects? I know your taking this as an insult, but for a fact it is the correctness and truth in the entries I'm interested in, I don't know you from anyone else of the billions of people on earth. Threatening me with blocking or removal will not correct the problems I give notice of. Ranleewright (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get insulted over edits at Wikipedia. Please stop making assumptions. I have tried to work with you in good faith but it is clear that you have some problems with POV: "Even putting the extremely physical hate crime of a gay man who was tied to a fence and murdered some time back to emphasise the direction of that part of the entry one Wikipedia. This is more like sensationalist journalism in a rag newspaper or media outlet, specializing in sensationalism or gossip." That...is just disturbing.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All I can do / say Amadscientist is look at this closely with a open mind, if you were john q public how would it look to you, would you make the assumption that these percentages and numbers given on the entry with out further research were physical attacks against gay men? Be honest about it you would the way this entry is worded. It is worded similarly under the violence against LGBT people under some of the other entries on Wikipedia using the same FBI reports, when the methodology of those FBI reports state clearly that these counts and percentages are composites. I have even found in other entries where attacks by LGBT people against LGBT persons are being listed after reference to hate crimes in regard to sexual orientation in the FBI reports. How that one works out in someone's mind I do not know? Yes these entries are disturbing, I can agree with that. Ranleewright (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly have come to Wikipedia with an agenda of disruption. I have tried to read your words and understand them, but you are only giving us your personal view of the world. You are not neutral and have made your mind up about an area you seem to have a personal view and bias that clouds your ability to work with others. Good luck at Wikipedia and Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The information I reference is in the FBI-Methodology in or attached to all those reports were the statistics are are coming from in these entries on Wikipedia, I do not understand you saying this is my personal view when the information is on the FBI reports and website? I am completely neutral and unbiased and have no agenda beyond seeing something that needs attention. You desire to take this as a personal insult or wish to try and expunge me off Wikipedia because I see the need for a entry or entries to be more forthcoming and clear in the information that is presented to the general public? Ranleewright (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Already have pointed the misinformation out many times, what other step must I pursue? I have focused on verifiable errors of fact, these facts are being ignored. Thank you for your time... Ranleewright (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No legal threats
As per our No legal threats policy, I have blocked you until you retract your legal threat made at Talk:Homosexuality on this page. Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The word truth has no definition on Wikipedia, now I know why. Ranleewright (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss and get consensus on talk page first. You can not discuss and get consensus with people who wish to mislead the general public. Look at the discussion... Ranleewright (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Of the 7,713 victims of a hate crime, 60.0 percent were victims of crimes against persons, and 39.8 percent were victims of crimes against property. The remaining percentage were victims of crimes against society. (Based on Table 2.) This is the information in the report not all of the crimes are physical attacks against people as it states very clearly, the information being published on Wikipedia under this sub heading is misleading. Ranleewright (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that, while I am the editor that filed the AN/I and you may not be inclined to believe my good faith, I feel obligated to at least try to help you here. Don't attempt to further the content dispute now please, it makes it worse if you are seen to be stuck on the dispute. Instead, take some time to form a retraction of the legal threat in an unambiguous manner. I have been in your shoes, and the possibility of being confused, angry and disappointed all at once can be overwhelming. Take a breath and understand that Wikipedia does not punish editors. Blocks are only preventative. While many suggestions were made about what to block you for, the fact is you were only blocked for the legal threat alone and that means you do have a good chance of regaining editing abilities. You have been given the opportunity to keep talkpage access to allow you the chance to make a retraction, but you could have that ability taken away as well if you abuse this in some manner. I urge you not to. Usually the following template is added and allows you a place to make the retraction, but also contains information, important to read before you do anything further to best make your next posting. If you have questions, I urge you to ask in a civil manner. Also, I am not an administrator, but an established and experienced editor and a member of WikiProject Editor Retention.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:No legal threats, as you did at Talk:Homosexuality. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Please be sure and read Guide to appealing blocks before you make your unblock request.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it has been confirmed that you created an illegitimate alternate account, pretending to be a different contributor.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No I did not my cuz was watching and he created an account in his name on my computer, he is a young fellow, by the way his real name is Jimbob, his last name is not Williams. I also retract the legal threat on the talk page of Homosexulity. He said that the IP on my computer because of my ISP wide spreed use in several states could be roled 100 of thousands of times, ever what that means. I told him to stop what he was doing and leave it alone. Ranleewright (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblock I retract the legal threat on the Homosexuality Talk page.Ranleewright (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For reviewing Administrator ref: SPI Archive  Taroaldo   ✉  04:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Received email from Taroaldo, the email is being blocked by outlook online, it is warning me not to open email from Taroaldo. It gives the notice: "Parts of this message have been blocked for your safety. You are about to unblock this content." everytime I try to open email from him outlook online gives this warning, buts it gives no warning for anyone else on Wikipedia when I receive email about posts on my talk page, could it be possible Toroaldo has a virus or malicious software somehow attached to his email unknowingly? Ranleewright (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have raised this issue at ANI.  Taroaldo   ✉  18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Taroaldo   ✉  18:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note...
...from your comments at ANI, you might want to read WP:VNT, Truth and (for a lighter-hearted look at the issue) WP:THETRUTH before attempting a return to editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)