User talk:Usernumber123

This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes ( ~ ) or by pressing or  in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.

Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
John from Idegon (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Worldwearywhore, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies There are several Wikipedia pages that mention "whore" and "whores." Should those be deleted? This was a class assignment for a course I am taking in LIS grad school. We just read The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih. The assignment was to sign up as an editor on Wikipedia and then edit a page and bring your experience to the class tonight. I shared my experience here in on our online forum and will be discussing it in class. What an experience it was!
 * I disagree, but I won't stand in the way of another admin overruling me., sorry; I appreciate your advocacy but I'm not with you here. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * would you consider a discussion at Requests for comment/User names (I don't know how much the board gets visited these days) to get community input? I'm admittedly on the fence about this one.  only (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm fine with everything. I saw some traffic there; and  have visited. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A page mentioning "whore" is probably a page that discusses prostitution. What you can tell your class is that whoever runs into you--like me, in this case--does not have the benefit of context. And this editor may well be from a very different cultural/religious/historical background as you are, and may well have serious problems with the term "whore" when used as a name, a name that they will have to use when they're talking to you. This is not hypothetical: our beautiful project is collaborative, and we are pretty much forced to talk to each other. I'm very familiar, I think, with your cultural world, but it's not the only world. You can call me a bitch, for instance, and I can respond with the well-known "you say I'm a bitch like that's a bad thing", but that only works within a certain cultural context. Surely your professor doesn't go around calling people "whore" or "bitch" or whatever, even if that's what they like to be called. They would feel very uncomfortable doing so, and so do I. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I will point out, politely, that you don't know me, so it seems odd that you would say that you're "very familiar" with my "cultural world." We spent an hour talking about this series of incidents on Wikipedia. I can share some reactions if you're interested. It's not just the blocking because of the username, it's the way it was done so absolutely, with no warning and no discussion. Also, my good-faith attempts to add a major local feature to a town (with a very meager Wikipedia page) were not only edited, they were blocked as well. Multiple good-faith attempts to try to contribute, in which I posted accurate information and provided a citation from the New York Times. Lots of commentary about that. It is a beautiful project, but is it collaborative? Or is it collaborative, but only for a certain demographic? I definitely was shut down in 24 hours by what seems like 2 or 3 people.
 * You're a college-educated American, for starters; that's close enough. I don't know you, but I know your culture and you know mine. Blocks for usernames are done routinely in this way; I blocked people with names like Social security sucks, KatPissWilliams, GreyShitKnight, Nuts Deez 69 (there are many variations on Deez Nuts), Hugedickjohnny, and Static Cock Head. A name with "whore" in it, well, it's disruptive enough in my opinion, and one other administrator agreed. One is on the fence. Again, I'm not going to find it easy calling someone "Worldwearywhore". Hey, Worldwearywhore, how's it hanging? I'm too old for that, and I'm not the oldest or the most conservative person on the site. As for the warning, I suppose I could have said "change your name or I'll block you", but what you got was a so-called "soft block", and all you have to do is propose a new user name. Now for the edits, which is much more interesting. User:John from Idegon reverted your addition, saying "No independent sources, not important". Well, it's hard to disagree with that: no sourcing was given. You gave the URL to the place, but a. we don't link in-text in that way and b. a link to the actual place isn't a secondary source, which is needed to establish that the information is accurate and important. So you restored (without explanation, but OK), and then added the NYT link--good work! An IP came along and removed the inline URL; that's valid. Then John removed it again, saying it wasn't important enough--that's an editorial decision, and I suppose John was waiting for you to show up on the talk page, which is where this sort of stuff is hashed out. You went to his talk page, he said go to the article talk page, and then I blocked you. Now, I disagree with his removal; I think that with the NYT reference the content is fine and can stand. In the meantime, someone else reinserted the information, and I just tweaked the citation so it looks all pretty. I would say that you did as well as can be expected from a first-time editor; that your edits are reverted the first (or the second) time, well, that happens--I think it happened to me too. It's not great, of course, but by the same token, nothing that's worth doing is easy. We can make it easier, maybe, and a lot of us try. Not me, I'm the grumpy old person. My friend  is much nicer, for instance, and so is . And maybe the next admin will have no problem with your user name and unblock you. If that doesn't happen, all you have to do is propose a new user name, one without what many consider to be an offensive, misogynist term. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I got pinged, I will chime in. I am no prude and read a lot of Henry Miller as a young man, and he wrote with great affection about world weary whores. I have great sympathy for sex workers and how they are stereotyped and ostracized. I also recognize the tongue in cheek nature of this name. However, this is (or ought to be) a collaborative project. Ideally, a devout Mormon and a radical feminist and a world weary cynic and an Orthodox Jew ought to be able to collaborate freely and easily on articles about fish species and silent films and Ohio state legislators who served in the 1840s. User names which function in any way as "a stick in the eye" to editors of different cultural backgrounds are a really bad idea. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what your culture is. I don't know you. I'm disappointed that you continue to stereotype me. Glad you're bringing that trait to the Wikipedia community. Here's my thing: I signed up yesterday to complete an assignment for a class, but I have always been curious about how Wikipedia articles are written and edited, and I had wanted to contribute further. In good faith, I try multiple times to add a bird and wildlife refuge that has been profiled in the New York Times and is an important wildlife sanctuary, not just for the local economy, but because it's a protected way station for migrating birds. But someone named John doesn't think that's important, and I don't understand the byzantine layers of rules, so it gets deleted. I even tried to contact John to get more information, but apparently I contacted him on the wrong page, and now I'm blocked for my user name. Who decides what's offensive? I guess you do, whoever you are. John thinks the bird sanctuary isn't important, and you and another person find the word "whore" offensive, so that's that. It made for a lively and interesting class discussion though, so thanks.

A classmate just posted this in our class forum: "I replaced the ecotourism section after class- it's still there as of 8:00 CST. Viva la WorldWearyWhore Movement!" So I guess that was who reposted it. I'm sure John hasn't seen it yet. I'll notify him here----so he can undo it. Unless he now thinks it's important. Honestly, I find nothing that is even slightly offensive in this Worldwearywhore username. Where has your well regarded good humour and common sense gone, Drmies? It is a phrase that is used in literature (and even in comedy - Kids In The Hall sketch about a writer of childrens books who would rather write detective fiction: "Yeah, I guess you could say I'm having trouble with the book, Sam. Tell me. If you were a 4 1/2 foot teddy bear named Fuzzy, and you had to find the magic honey tree in order to save your village, who would you go to for advice? The wise old owl? The gentle giraffe? Or Kitty, the world-weary whore -- who's as smart as she is tough, and she is plenty tough, mister!"). Presumably Cutkiller is now going to get the chop, since cutting and/or killing is quite a little bit worse than whoring (or being weary of), and as for Big Wang...... Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, a bit of citizen activism. That's fine. As for John, I already pinged him. I don't really know what to do about this charge of stereotyping: I'm not stereotyping anyone. I'm just saying that I find your user name offensive, and some 200 editors at some point decided I should have that power, the power to block people and make decisions like this. They can take that power away from me too, if they like. Who's to decide what's offensive? Well, do you want this to be a free-for-all, like the rest of the internet? Also, I helped you in that article, and the fact that I said what I said probably means that John won't revert, because I think it's a decent edit and now there's two editors saying it, you and me. Now, I have given you my reasons for the block, and I will explain again what you can do: place an unblock request and suggest a new user name, or you place an unblock request and maintain that your name is not offensive. Either way, you don't have to ping me anymore; good luck with it. If your teacher is ever interested in the behind-the-scenes workings, they can drop me a line on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just blocked User:Fuckyou0411. I find that offensive too, and I trust I'm not the only one. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand. Wang is my name. People have nicknames of Big Al and Big Lou, etc all the time so I don't understand why I cannot have this Big Wang (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you shouldn't! We've had mention of "cultural world" earlier. I'm making the point that in some parts of the world your username could be considered something other than an username based on a personal name. Check out urban dictionary. That's why this offensive username rule should be very carefully enforced and mostly only enforced when offense is intended by the user of the name, rather than extrapolating there would be a possible offense in the eyes of some users who might see it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Then run for admin and unblock her. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Her? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "We just read The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih". Oh dear. Worldwearywhore I suggest you go read ED to get a FAR better picture of what a lot of Wikipedia is. Or for a serious side, edit for a couple of years and keep an eye on the administrator notice boards for the latest scandal or edit war. Or for real research find out who sired who, going back through the generations of administrators. I too did an IT class assignment on Wikipedia back when Wikipedia was investigating (as in hushing up) its Eastern European Mailing List scandal. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I got pinged, too, so here I am and here's my US$0.10. Just come up with another username and be done with it. Why in the world would any editor prefer writing ad nauseum on these sorts of talkpages instead of editing articles? Rhetorical question; no response required. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Rachel, I did not report you. Someone who watches my talk page did. I find it difficult to fathom why you were blocked. As far as your edit goes, my initial objection was the lack of reference. Subsiquently, as I explained on the article talk page, my objection was, and still is, based on the fact that the information was presented in its own section, headed with a marketing term like Ecotourism. The city has a park system and this is one element of it. I'd have no objections to a bit on the place in the larger construct of a section on the city's parks. , I find your statement above affirming a consensus to be lacking, unless of course consensus suddenly did become a vote. There is an open discussion at the talk page and frankly, the discourse here is irrelevant.

One thing I am in complete agreement with here is that you should just change your username. Pick the battles that are worth fighting. You have an assignment to complete, no? As my dad used to say, "Having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the bus runs you over." Sorry this all happened. It shouldn't have. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Worldwearywhore. Yet another person sticking their nose in, I'm afraid. That was an excellent source you cited; it turns out we already had a poorly referenced article on the World Birding Center, so I added it there and used it to add a little bit more info. I then rewrote the section in the Edinburg, Texas article to point to that article, and changed the heading to the more general "Sights", since so far that seems to be the only visitor attraction mentioned in the Edinburg article, and there may well be others that can be added, so there's no reason to limit it in advance to ecotourism. You mention that you know of lots of sources on the Birding Center; they would be very useful in the article on the Center, more so, I think, than in the Edinburg article ... unless, that is, you can find enough independent sources (i.e. not the city or the county) to write an article on Edinburg Scenic Wetlands. The requirements for it to have its own article are summarized here with links to fuller explanations.


 * I've pinged you on the Edinburg article's talk page, along with, but I've also come here because you're blocked right now. I'd like to request you to ask for a change of user name so that you can carry on helping us with articles like these. I have to admit that of the whores I know, none are actually "world-weary"; more are "happy hookers" actually, but that would be equally épater les bourgeois. Could you go for Scarlet Woman, or even Domme? (Maybe would veto Domme. I dunno.) Maybe have a class brainstorming session to come up with something very clever.  is already taken, I'm afraid. But I hope you do, because we'd like to have you stick around and give us more stuff. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Worldwearywhore. I'll admit it here, I was the one who reported you to WP:UAA because I thought the word "whore" was meant to be offensive. Additionally, a bot by the name of DQB automatically posted a report against you there after matching the term "whore" as well, and that's probably why you were blocked. But as the others have said, your contributions is not the reason for your block, it's just because of your username. If you follow our advice and change your username to something less offensive, such as "Worldwearyshore" (it's only one letter changed and it sounds more or less the same but doesn't hurt) it'll just be like this has never happened before. Cheers, &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (Apologizing in advance if I get some of the mark-up wrong in this edit- still trying to figure that out...)
 * I must agree with on the pick your battles issue- but I would turn it on those who feel that the username 'Worldwearywhore' should be deleted/banned/blocked. I am new to the Wikipedia community (in fact, I am the aforementioned cohort from Worldwearywhore's LIS class) but it seems to me that the spirit of Wikipedia is to avoid censorship if at all possible, not to jump on someone's choice of username simply because 'somebody' 'somewhere' may be offended. If we are to limit ourselves to language choices that will avoid offense in ALL cultural contexts, as implied by Drmies above, I'm afraid we will need to resort to a 'generic user ID#' format and skip the individual expression motif altogether- except that *I* -and, I hope, the vast majority of Wikipedia users- would find THAT offensive as well. Let's skip right past the offensive nature of making assumptions about others' culture and talk about what constitutes offensive behavior. I find censorship offensive. I can appreciate the need to monitor and remove hate speech, or deliberate attempts to troll or offend others, but 'Worldwearywhore,' regardless of whether or not Drmies will find it 'easy' or comfortable to use to address someone, or whether or not 'someone' of 'some culture' 'somewhere' could potentially be offended, does not constitute hate speech, or even remotely a deliberate attempt to provoke or offend. What someone chooses to use to identify themselves online is a personal choice and constitutes self-expression, and the onus should be on the censor to justify their act of censorship- not the other way around. It seems to me that those Users who are choosing to make this an issue are the ones who need to choose their battles; re-instate Worldwearywhore and lets focus on promoting free access to information, not censorship of self-expression. Iktomi23 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Iktomi23
 * Hi, thanks for weighing in (and by the way, the markup looks good! I actually originally registered to learn it but stuck around to write and fix things; that was an alarming number of years ago :-D). You set out a good argument. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't about avoiding censorship; it's about writing an encyclopedia. The community comes together to do this task, and as such, we have rules and guidelines to try to make it possible for a huge number of very disparate people to be able to work together as smoothly as possible. One small part of this is that we do forbid user names that are likely to offend a significant number of fellow editors (and also misleading user names and promotional user names): the rules are here. Unfortunately, so far as I know, there is still no notice pointing to these rules when people initially create their accounts. Another example of a rule that outsiders are likely unaware of and would not think we have is that against edit warring; collaborate too vigorously in a tug-of-war fashion on the wording and content of an article, and you will start to get warning messages, and if you revert more than three times in 24 hours on the same article you will almost certainly be temporarily blocked. Instead the editors are supposed to talk about it on the article talk page. Then there is the notability policy; this encyclopedia is online, so it can be and is vastly larger and more inclusive than paper encyclopedias, but it isn't a ragbag of everything that exists, or a web host for personal essays ... etc. All of these policies stem from the fact that this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a free-expression site. We ruthlessly include notable topics and information about them that some, in some cases many, people find offensive. But in order to facilitate that, we need to treat each other like colleagues. ... And I'll stop there before I get any more sententious, apologies. But to my mind you both deserved responses. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that the intent is to create an encyclopedia, and not simply a venue for self-expression, and I wouldn't expect, for example, for indivduals to create pages of their own prose or artwork. The selection of username, however, seems to me an area where self-expression should be respected and, as I stated before, the burden of justification should fall on those who censor, rather than the censored. I appreciate the need for some regulation in order to keep discourse civil and to foster a community where everyone can feel welcome- but in reference to the Username policy...
 * The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are disruptive or offensive:
 * Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities or referencing controversies.
 * Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks.
 * Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").
 * Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
 * Applying these standards to 'Worldwearywhore' while it certainly is possible that someone, somewhere might find it offensive, the same could be said of virtually ANY choice of name, given enough effort on the part of the offended. I see no evidence that 'Worldwearywhore' is "likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible," there is no profanity here (the word 'whore' is even acceptable on network television), and I don't see any controversy being referenced. No evidence whatsoever is offered that this word is likely to offend anyone, aside from the few users who feel justified in blocking/banning it. There is clearly no personal attack implied or intended, there is clearly no trolling intended, and there is obviously no disruptive intent. The only remotely evidential statements I have seen are along the lines of crying hypothetical 'somebodies' who could potentially take offense, and "I'm not going to find it easy calling someone "Worldwearywhore". Hey, Worldwearywhore, how's it hanging?"
 * Again, I think that a community like this needs to take censorship seriously, and when it MUST be applied in order to preserve civility and openness, there should be clear and objective reasons for the action, rather than 'might's' and 'maybe's' and 'I'm too old for that's.'  Iktomi23 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Iktomi23

My goodness! Twelve edits made and now 22,353 keystrokes spent on this? This is simple: Your username contains the word "whore" and that is absolutely going to offend, be challenged, and be disruptive one way or the other. Please just pick another username and start editing. The amount of keystrokes and reads spent on this could have be used to create five articles by now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It does seem unnecessary- but I still haven't seen any evidence offered to substantiate the claim the Worldwearywhore violates any of the points of the policy, beyond repeating that someone could hypothetically be offended. It is not my username to change, but I am not offended by the name, whereas I am offended by the censorship. Iktomi23


 * It is necessary because many almost certainly will challenge the name in the future. It is therefore disruptive. Wikipedians are very, very liberal and detest censorship. This is not about being prudish or conservative. We are not. It is about preventing disruption. If this user cares about Wikipedia and the volunteers here, he will wish to avoid this disruption (waste of resources sorting it out) and just pick a better username. This is not worth fighting for. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

How did you choose your user name, Anna Frodesiak? You're playing on the word aphrodisiac, right? What if I decided that it reminded me of people drugging and raping women ("quaaludes" are being defended by Bill Cosby and others right now as merely "aphrodisiacs") and reported you? That would be wrong, of course, but someone with you user name arguing that mine is potentially disruptive seems more than a little hypocritical. Have you ever been reported and blocked for your user name?


 * You are very close to others accusing you of trolling. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't advise accusing admins of being hypocritical, and this is all going nowhere fast. For crying out loud, I've been reported to UAA (probably mistakenly), but this is all going in an ugly direction. GABHello! 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Worldwearywhore is simply pointing out that we can always find potentially offensive material almost anywhere, if we try hard enough. The point is that as far as we've heard, this argument is about the possibility that someone could be offended- I haven't seen anyone expressing that they have actually been offended by this username. It may make sense to revisit the issue if others actually do challenge the name in the future- but it seems like this whole business is more disruptive than the actual username could be claimed to be... Iktomi23


 * This is pure WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and you haven't even started editing yet. I shudder to think what you would do if unblocked and someone reverts you. This is not worth fighting for. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this fine with you?
 * It isn't the most ideal username to have but that should work. Good luck! &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)