User talk:Xvon

November 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 21, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk)

I undid your removal of other's talk and undid your edit at the same time. Jim1138 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 21. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 21

You disassociated the comment from the signiture. Others will not be able to deturmine who made the comment. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It will tell you how to reply to a section of another's comment. Jim1138 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

need some help with this, am new to wikipedia i apologize Xvon (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop doing the thing I have asked you not to do. It is contrary to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you continue to "refactor other's talk" you will likely be blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Thank you. There are ways to add a comment to a section of someone else's talk without disrupting their comment. It might be in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. But, essentially, you want others to know that you made the comment, not the person who left the comment. Jim1138 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashida Jones

If someone undoes an edit you made, it is best to leave a message on her/his talk page and discuss it. Most editors are wp:civil and are usually helpful. Wikipedia works by wp:concensus. Reverting other's changes without discussion is considered wp:edit warring and often leads to a temporary or even permanent wp:block. Discuss your concerns with PurpleBackPack. Start a new section on talk:Rashida Jones. Support your claims (if necessary) with citations so Purple can understand what you want. Then leave a note on Purple's talk page letting him/her know you want to discuss the matter. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 21 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of African-American descent

The best thing to do now is to enter a keep vote. It would also be helpful to explain why you think this is a useful category. I do not think much can be done about the people who are trying to empty the category out of order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am confused??? why are users allowed to remove people from this category when as of now it is still a valid category, but when i place the person back in i am getting in trouble? please get back to me.Xvon (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "remove" Rashida and Kris from the category, I restored an edit that returned them to the status quo of not being in the category. As I noted on JPL's page (and others have to him as well), it's best not to add or remove people from the category. p b p 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. If you think your motion will work, there is no gain from stopping its growth. If the category is going to survive, I see no sense in preventing its growth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The growth should occur if, and after the presence of the category has been justified. JPL, you've been warned about adding and removing categories in the middle of move discussions. Just as other editors warned you, so I warn Xvon. What pages are in the category should make no different to the discussion, so the status quo (for Rashida and Kris, not being in the category) should be preserved p b p 03:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this policy is called WP:BRD. You made bold edits changing their categories. They were reverted. Now we discuss them. p b p 03:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Alicia Keys with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jim1138 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best way to move forward at this point is to add comments to talk pages. I hope you do not let the attack approach of some of the people here scare you off from editing wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Although repeatedly calling another editor's argument "silly", particularly without any reasons why, is adopting said "attack approach" and is likely to get you blocked p b p 00:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pbp that is nonsense. i clearly have explained the reasons why i think that cat should be kept. the issue here is for some odd reason you are opposed to it, and you go on the attack against others while at the same time not providing any logical reason that the category should be eliminated. Xvon (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Not providing any logical reason"...you have got to be kidding! I've given you two very good reasons why: a) the category name is completely nonsensical, there's no need for the same word twice in one category; b) nor is there a need for separate category for people who are part one race/ethnicity, as opposed to people who are wholly one race/ethnicity (the vast majority of other races/ethnicities do not have separate categories for whole and part). The fact that you fail to acknowledge that I have valid reasons smacks of not having a clue p b p 02:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

26 November

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Alicia Keys, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. p b p 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Rashida Jones, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. p b p 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alicia Keys shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. p b p 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rashida Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. p b p 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your questions

Neither of them are really any of your dang business, but 8/8/89 is my birthday and my alternate account is User:Purplebackpackonthetrail, which has as its signature p b p (my regular signature, but green instead of gold). If you seriously believe that User:Nymf is a sockpuppet (an illegitimate alternate acct.), you might want to start a thread at WP:ANI or WP:SPI. p b p 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks for the response. Xvon (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page formatting

Would you please format your talk? It is difficult to read without formatting. See Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation I would also recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

the category in question still exists and there are numerous other people listed in that cat, all i did is revert jones and keys to that cat while the discussion continues (no consensus has been reached yet). if i am blocked for doing that why aren't jim1138 and purplebackpack89 also blocked for removing those same people from the category. also you listed the reason for me being blocked as "repeatedly changing categories against consensus" this is wrong for 2 reasons: one i have not "repeatedly" changed anything, 3 days had passed by before i changed the cat, and two there has been no consensus reached yet on that cat. please unblock me since clearly this block is unfair and unwarranted

Decline reason:

The fact that your edits had to be reverted by multiple editors justifies a block to prevent further disruptive activity, and 24 hours is a minimal duration appropriate for you to have some down-time to learn to edit more in line with your good intentions. This is a short block, learn from the comments others have given, and come back refreshed and ready to work with the community again. Taking WP:BRD to heart is excellent advice. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2012 (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.

I knew that if you requested unblock you would say I should be blocked. The fact that Jim and I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry, didn't blank other's comments in a CfD discussion, or didn't try to vote twice might have something to do with it. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:3RR. The key is that three people (plus whomever put the cats there in the first place) undid your edits at Keys and Jones, not just one. If one editor makes a bold edit, another editor reverts him, and the two get into an edit war, both are blocked. When one editor makes a bold edit, another editor reverts him, the bold undoes that, and different editors keep reverting every time, only the editor who made the bold edit is blocked. The "consensus" for the category is dubious, since no discussion has occurred on the Jones page, there is no consensus in the discussion on the Keys page, and the CfD for the category is now five days in and 6-2 against keeping. And furthermore, this time, you've only been blocked for one day. You can start editing tomorrow morning, though I'd advise you not to put those categories back, because it will be as wrong as it was this morning p b p 23:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pbp as i have mentioned to you many times i am new to wikipedia and that i joined wikipedia basically because i would often see people listed as "african-american" in the categories at the bottom of pages when i felt that these people did not really fit that description. i had no idea i would be swept up in this "CFD controversy" but i figured what the heck i might as well participate. I WANT TO CORRECT 3 accusations you made against me: 1- i did not "accuse you" of sockpuppetry, what i did was ask you what your second alternative account name was. 2- i did not blank other's comments, i mistakenly removed small text that was attached to my comment on the CFD page. 3- i was unaware that a user could only vote once and that was an honest mistake when i used the word KEEP instead of COMMENT on the CFD page. so now that i've clarified all this please unblock me daniel case, and if anything you should look into users like purplebackpack89 because i'm starting to think he may be gaming the system. Xvon (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Asking about "second alternative account name" is a clear suggestion of WP:SOCK. (2) You removed the comments. Wikipedia rules are strong on actions and weak on intent. (3) Again, what you intended or understood is irrelevant, we can only see your actions, and will continue to judge you by them. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

daniel case please remove my block or at least get back to me and let me know what's going on here. i have numerous users attacking me (stuartyeates now also) when i'm doing nothing intentionally wrong and only want to contribute to wikipedia.Xvon (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've only been blocked for 24 hrs. You'll be free to edit again at 1623 UTC/1123 EST/823 PST p b p 03:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't asking you i was asking daniel case, who blocked me but still has not responded as to WHY EXACTLY i was blocked for 24 hrs. the least he could do if my block isn't removed is answer why exactly i was blocked when pbp, jim1138, and others were not. i think i know the answer which is because i'm new to wikipedia and apparently a**holes on here like ganging up on the new guy, but i'm still waiting for my response from him. it's not a matter of "i need to go back and edit such and such article" as to the reason i want to be unblocked, it's the principle of it.Xvon (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulterior motive

In your comments at the CfD and your cat renames, you seem to indicate that I have some ulterior motive. Why don't you just get some diffs and start the ANI thread against me where you lay out what you don't like? p b p 01:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dude seriously i'm done talking to you, i don't even care any more if the cat gets kept or deleted. you have your opinion and i have mine, my only real issue is why you seem so against this appropriate descent category in the first place? Xvon (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two main beefs are that the title's redundant and the category already exists... p b p 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

firstly the title is not redundant, the wording is clearly different than the other cat. secondly the category doesn't ALREADY EXIST (what does that even mean), thirdly another person voted to keep so it looks like the cat is sticking around after all : - )

Xvon (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Except that more people have voted not to keep than to keep... The "larger picture" you speak of appears to be, "Well I think it should be kept" rather than any logical reason p b p 04:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....nonsense, i provided numerous logical reasons why the category should be kept. others have also provided reasons (although somewhat different than mine) as to why it should be kept or re-worded. Xvon (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again?

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rashida Jones. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Blake Griffin, you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history at Rashida Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Your recent editing history at Blake Griffin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

When Category:American people of African-American descent was deleted, I assumed you would go do something else. Instead you went and re-removed the African-American categories, claiming that there wasn't a reliable source for their identity. Well, in Blake's and Rashida's case, there was, and even if there wasn't, you're still POV pushing against a long-held consensus to categorize them as such. Please stop p b p 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pbp i'm not trying to do anything wrong here even though it may seem that way, i just want these people to be in the accurate categories at the bottom of the page.

i have some questions: you stated "you're still POV pushing against a long-held consensus to categorize them as such" please forgive me but i have no clue what this sentence means, can you please elaborate on this? what is the "long-held consensus", and who decided it? please get back to me with answers to those two questions so i can leave this issue alone and move on to other less "controversial" wikipedia articles, thank you very much and i apologize if i'm doing something wrong.

PS - i notice that for LGBT people on wikipedia there always needs to be a ref saying that the person identifies that way.

also if you look at the pictures of these persons they do not physically appear "african-american" or "black", so why are you insisting they be in that category? Xvon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following:

Sexuality isn't race
Blake and Rashida are sourced as being part black
What they look like is irrelevant. I don't look like the things I am
On most of these, you are the only person to say they aren't A-A. Per WP:BRD, you have to discuss why they shouldn't be in the category, and have a preponderance of editors agree with you p b p 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the category you proposed on JPL's page already exists, but has a different scope than you propose p b p 20:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced African Americans

I have found lots and lots of people in Category:African-American actors that never in the article says they are African American. For the record, it has to state it in the article, people cannot infer it from pictures, which some people seem to have done.

Category:People of African-American descent is supposed to be used for non-Americans who have ancestors who were African-Americans. Category:American people of African descent has a scope that no one really understands, and it is not clear whether we should have articles directly in it or not.

If the article mentions that any ancestor of a person was African-American, then they can go in the African-American cats. If the article never mentions such, then they do not belong there. If the article says Person x is a granddaughter of Martin Luther King, but never says that Martin Luther King was African-American, the best course would probably be to edit the article so that it makes it clear the person has African-American ancestry. ML King is probably not a good example, but the point is that the article must say the person is African American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One point of order...it doesn't necessarily have to be in the text of the article so long as it's in the references of the article p b p 06:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]