User talk:Shammy5150

Welcome!

Hello, Shammy5150, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mazewaxie 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. An edit that you recently made to Ayanna Pressley seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Rob van vee 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ayanna Pressley. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She attended Boston University, though she did not graduate. It is perfectly fine to list Boston University in the info box under the "education" parameter, just not the "alma mater" parameter. The text can be the place where we mention that she attended, but did not graduate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your analysis. It is false and misleading to list "Boston University" under the "Education" section, especially when the fact that she did not graduate from college is conveniently omitted from the paragraph describing her "Early Life and Education." Facts are facts. Stop being deceptive because it suits your liberal agenda and narrative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammy5150 (talk • contribs)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ayanna Pressley, you may be blocked from editing. CLCStudent (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ayanna Pressley. CLCStudent (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2019 (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).

Shammy5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My proposed edits to Ayanna Pressley's Wiki page are factual in nature. These facts are readily available in print and online - including on Ms. Pressley's website. The casual Wiki user who reads Ms. Pressley's biography will assume that she graduated from Boston University, which is completely inaccurate. For users to trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, it is imperative that the information contained in biographies and other types of wiki pages be 100% accurate. Wiki is aware that Ms. Pressley does not hold a college degree, but willingly lists Boston University for her education and then refuses to include an affirmative statement that a college degree was never earned. I am indifferent to the actual language that you use. For the sake of your users, you need to correct this error. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You were edit warring against multiple other editors without pursuing dispute resolution or making use of the article's talk page. And for comparison, William McKinley happens to be a higher-profile Republican who also doesn't have a "did not graduate" in his infobox. In both caases, the body of the article gives the relevant details. So someone's biases and assumptions of bad faith are showing, but it's not those of the editors who disagreed with you. Huon (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2019 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, "Narrow self-interest", "treating editing as a battleground" and "major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". You clearly created this account solely to attack the credibility of a biography-subject, and when it was explained to you why your edits are disruptive, you responded with threats to escalate the issue outside of Wikipedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 23 July 2019 (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).

Shammy5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you want to call editing against your political biases "edit warring," then be my guest. And the use of William Kinley as an example to support your point is absolutely ridiculous. He served as POTUS in 1897!!! Ayanna Pressley is a modern political figure who seemingly can escape the fact that she has no formal education because LIBERAL outlets like Wikipedia silence the truth. Pathetic.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2019 (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.

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).

Shammy5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for clarifying the reasons for blocking my editing privileges. I now understand these reasons and will refrain from causing any disruption or damage to Wikipedia. My intention all along was to correct what I perceived to be misleading information in a prominent public figure's wiki page. Regrettably, the editors do not agree with point of view. In my mind, it is now a closed issue. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Since you don't indicate any edits you want to make, there is no reason to unblock you at this time. If you come across an edit you want to make, you can then request unblock at that time. Personally, given your comments on this page, I am also uncomfortable unblocking you without you agreeing to refrain from editing about US politics for a period of time(maybe 6 months); maybe the next admin to review a request you make will, but not me. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2019 (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.

What do you intend to edit about if unblocked? Would you agree to refrain from editing about US politics-related articles? How will you handle editing disputes in the future? 331dot (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not anticipate engaging in much editing. I have used Wikipedia dating back to its founding in 2001 and have never taken it upon myself to edit any articles. With that said, I do not think it is fair to impose restrictions on my editing privileges. I want to be treated like everyone else. For the record, I did not realize that I was engaging in edit warring. I would make a change...it would appear on the wiki page....and then would disappear shortly thereafter. I actually thought I was doing something wrong.

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).

Shammy5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am reiterating my request to unblock my editing privileges. I am new to "editing" wiki and was learning the ropes yesterday. If agreeing to refrain from editing U.S. politics for a period of 6 months would appease Wiki, I will gladly agree to comply with this request. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I'm not convinced that you're ready to move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:37, 27 July 2019 (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.

Multiple open unblock requests

It is abusive to open multiple simultaneous unblock requests. Which one would you like us to consider? Please consider striking out your above threat, as this will count against you in any unblock review. --Yamla (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just deleted the redundant unblock requests. There is now only one to consider.

edit warring

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]