Lou franklin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lou franklin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{unblock|The "troll warning" contributes to incivility, and as such should be removed. The article is controlled by an organized group of gay activists that are not working in good faith. Read the discussion page for more information. ArbCom is involved. We may be able to compromise on this article, but not if I am blocked. Please unblock me and let ArbCom reach their own conclusion about the "consensus" of editors who control the article.}} |
|||
{{unblock}} |
|||
*[[/Archive]] |
*[[/Archive]] |
Revision as of 03:58, 22 April 2006
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
Lou franklin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The "troll warning" contributes to incivility, and as such should be removed. The article is controlled by an organized group of gay activists that are not working in good faith. Read the discussion page for more information. ArbCom is involved. We may be able to compromise on this article, but not if I am blocked. Please unblock me and let ArbCom reach their own conclusion about the "consensus" of editors who control the article. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=The "troll warning" contributes to incivility, and as such should be removed. The article is controlled by an organized group of gay activists that are not working in good faith. Read the discussion page for more information. ArbCom is involved. We may be able to compromise on this article, but not if I am blocked. Please unblock me and let ArbCom reach their own conclusion about the "consensus" of editors who control the article. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=The "troll warning" contributes to incivility, and as such should be removed. The article is controlled by an organized group of gay activists that are not working in good faith. Read the discussion page for more information. ArbCom is involved. We may be able to compromise on this article, but not if I am blocked. Please unblock me and let ArbCom reach their own conclusion about the "consensus" of editors who control the article. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Argument on the talk page
As I read over the talk page, I noticed that you were being treated extremely unfairly, and while it was pretty much you just bringing back a dead argument over and over, they did not give you any sort of good faith. I believe that you want to improve the article, and while that may not be what you are doing, note that I will most likely be backing you in that they aren't treating you fairly on the talk page, while not backing you in the debate on whether your edits are vandalism or not, along with 3RR debates.
Also, I recommend that you archive your talk page. 89KB is quite a size, and it hurts the eyes :D. GofG ||| Contribs 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have archived my talk page. Thanks for the tip.
- I am "bringing back a dead argument over and over" because that is the only way to improve the article. I have had to address the same points over and over again before getting them resolved. Ultimately the "consensus" usually comes to. (eventually).
- You are welcome to your opinion, but there is absolutely no question that I am improving the article. Look through the history and take a look at the article before I got involved. It was alarming.
- Look at what Wikipedia says about obscenity:
- Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
- That seems pretty clear to me. If you are writing the Penis article, it might make sense to feature an illustration of a penis. But that is clearly not necessary for this topic. Clearly "cocksucker" would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers. And it is clearly not central to the topic. I'm not sure how they can argue that one with a straight face. Lou franklin 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
block
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Octagon-warning.png/40px-Octagon-warning.png)
You have been blocked for one month after violating 3rr; you have been blocked a number of times, for extended lengths of time. Please do not continue upon your return. While I do believe that the length is warranted, please feel free to ask for a review by placing {{unblock}} on your user page. --Heah? 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)