Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants

Hello

April 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Head shaving, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Le Marteau (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Willindon, I'm not sure what you mean. Please could you cite what edits you believe constitute disruptive editing.

I made 3 edits tonight, one of which I would call a bit of fun. The other two however were perfectly appropriate and sourced. OTP is a common abbreviation, ask any Kiwi, Englishman, Australian, and they'll tell you exactly what it means to them. It's also been defined by multiple dictionaries such as Merriam Webster (which I note is American, so OTP isn't exactly an obscure abbreviation localised in certain corners of the globe but rather well known internationally). Regarding Stavros Halkias, he is indeed bald and obese, which he discussed in the Bert Kreischer podcast episode I cited. I struggle to see how this edit could be disruptive, as the articles cites another podcast, so it seems information discussed by Mr. Halkias is relevant for his Wikipedia article. Indeed it's a big part of his "act", you can check out his stand up on Youtube (e.g. fat, bald, and toothless) or any of the tens of Cum Town episodes where Stav's weight and lack of hair is discussed. I'm sure I could find some reliable sources to confirm this, if Youtube itself can't be considered a source.

In any case I have solid edits. You have previously left a harassing message on my private talk. I wonder if your reversion of my edits tonight is motivated not by the edits themselves but rather your desire to harass and smear me.

Yours

Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I also don't take kindly to THREATS. My edits were constructive and sourced, and some STALKER leaves a message on my talk page threatening me after reverting them? With power-tripping editors like you I see why Wikipedia is widely regarded as an unreliable, biased piece of shit. Truly a stain on the fountain of knowledge that is the Internet.

I am of course prepreared to discuss my edits but I will not tolerate threats.

Kindly

Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

From today, we have an article talk page post [1] only to say "Great head of hair on this bloke. Nice one." Behaviour which continues from a few days' prior, an article talk page post [2] only to announce "I am a homosexual." Then there's the addition to an article on a person who died, to add that the death was "after a failed bong hit transplant" [3].

That's not to say that some of your edits aren't a complete non-improvement, though some I would challenge as of marginal value. You mention "OTP" and its inclusion in two dictionaries, but in neither edit to articles did you give any source at all [4], [5]. I'm aware of the phrase "on the piss", but I'm not aware of it being referred to with initials as "OTP". You should have provided the source when you made the edits. It's already been explained to you what the problem is with using a primary source (his podcast) to add the fact of Halkias' baldness. It needs a secondary source to indicate that that is notable.

On the whole, I see the net value of your edits tending toward "non-constructive" and "vandalism". The above notices are intended as warnings that your behaviour, if continued, will result losing access to edit articles. I understand why many people take them as threats, though. So rest assured, I will neither be threatening you nor warning you in future. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries mate will clean up my act ASAP. Have corrected some awkward phrasing at Dunedin Botanic Garden if you want to see if that passes your standards.

Also regarding OTP. None of the other entries on OTP (disambiguation) are sourced. So I don't see why my edit was removed. No hard feelings though.

Thanks Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your username and talkpage comments

Hi, AFSWP. Could you please change your username to something else? Your current username seems to bring disrepute onto a living person, which is not okay. You can find instructions on changing your username at WP:CHU. Thanks.

Also, it's rather disheartening that your second edit after your above commitment to clean up your act was to make a joke comment at Talk:Disemvoweling. A little humor is fine here and there, and normally I wouldn't care that much, but in the context of your previous comments on talk pages it's, again, disheartening. Please see WP:NOTFORUM before making further talkpage comments. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. Firstly thank you for leaving a message here, I'm a new wikipedia editor so I'm just learning the ropes around rules, guides, etc, and it really means to a lot to receive such helpful advice like this.

Secondly, the living person in question did indeed soil his white pants so I don't see how I would be responsible for bringing him into disrepute. That said I will have a look over the userrname guidelines.

Regarding your final comment, I just just trying to have a little fun. I like having fun and I think it's a big part of the human experience and probably the best thing you can do for your overall wellbeing. Members of the public browsing for information don't tend to come onto talk pages, so it seems pretty harmless to me. That being said, out of respect for the venerable and arcane guidelines I will refrain from trying to spread joy on talk pages.

Chiars

Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I do want to be clear on the username: If you continue editing without changing it, I'm going to have to block your account. I appreciate that it may be acceptable on sites like Reddit or Twitter, and I'm not familiar enough with the person in question to know if this is something he would mind, but in any case it's not acceptable here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What does "block my account" mean? Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK. It's what other sites might call banning (although that means a different thing here). It would mean that you would no longer be able to edit Wikipedia. You'd still be able to create a new account, as long as it has a name compliant with our username policy. (Username blocks are an exception to the general rule that once your account is blocked, you cannot edit under any other account, nor logged out.) I'd quite rather it didn't come to that. I don't really like blocking people. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Ok thanks for that information. Wikipedia usernames policy states:

"Certain disruptive and offensive usernames (such as those containing contentious material about living persons, or those that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social groups) should be immediately blocked by administrators. If such usernames are libelous or contain information that is usually suppressed (such as non-public personal identifiable information about another editor), the username should be suppressed from logs..."

You have threatened me with blocking for my username, which you state "seems to bring disrepute onto a living person" and link to the usernames policy, "not okay". Then you chastise me for my previous comments. I offer a rebuttal, "...the living person in question did indeed soil his white pants so I don't see how I would be responsible for bringing him into disrepute". You fail to address or even acknowledge this rebuttal and again threaten me. You have failed to offer any rationale as how how my username brings anybody into disrepute, nor is your suggestion of "disrepute" even mentioned in the usernames policy BLP guidelines. It's ridiculous to suggest that [name, unspecified person] + descriptor + noun = disrepute. Indeed, "soiled" doesn't have any negative connotations. To argue it does is bigotry and seeks to denies those in the poop fetish the right to live, love, and express themselves freely. Also, "seems"? Seems isn't the kind of word I want to see Wikipedia editors using. They shouldn't act on assumptions or vague emotions. They should make decisions on properly sourced facts.

Re: the policy, reproduced above.

Firstly, there are many Adam Friedlands. How do you know I didn't make it up of the top of my head. How do I know he's not the protagonist in my YA post-apocalyptic fiction coming out next February? And why do you assume his pronouns are he anyway?

That aside, I'm assuming that you're assuming that my username refers to Adam Friedland of a certain racist, alt-right podcast fame. From here on out this is my working assumption.

The policy states "certain disruptive and offensive usernames" ... should be ... blocked". Disruptive - you're the only person in my MONTHS of editing who has even batted an eyelid at my self-chosen, empowering name. Seems the only people being disrupted are those who spend their free time finding things online to be disrupted by (they do it for free). Offensive - who would find my username offensive? Prudes? Alt right extremists? Trump supporters who've never heard of sexual intercourse outside of white-on-white missionary? (which I note is a highly racist and antiquated term for a sex position considering the atrocities committed by missionaries in Africa). But that's an assumption too, because of course soiled means anything dirty. But you're assuming, and I'm assuming your assumptions, so here we are. The policy continues, "those containing contentious material about living persons... If such usernames are libelous or contain information that is usually supressed, the username should be blocked". Again, you've clearly made certain assumptions, so let's unpack this. Contentious information ... let's google that ... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/contentious ... causing , involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument ... the only that's argued with me is you, who's arguing with me because you believe other people will want to argue with me too. Irony much? Anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find a court accepting that [unspecified name] + [inoffensive, everyday adjective] + [clothing] is contentious about this particular living person. Really struggle to picture any sane functioning adult that would spend their time argueing over a strangers vague internet nomme de guerre. Also, again anticipating your assumptions here, the living person did indeed soil his pants (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqyAMP-VDQk). If that information were "contentious" would the podcast episode be recorded and then released for millions of homosexuals worldwide to jack off to? I don't think so. Clearly not contentious. If it were contentious, the hosts would have never released the podcast. The policy also mentions libel. It has been established, countless times, in US and British law, that truth is a defence against libel. That is, if you can prove your claim is true, claims of libel cannot be made, and as shown in the linked audio recording the supposed namesake is 100% real. I must again mention that I not claiming my username refers to the incident linked to above, wherein a certain Hebraic gentlement shit through his new white linen pants and ruined several camping chairs, but rather I am anticipating your accusation of libel etc. ... when my username could refer to literally anything. So really really poor case for my name to be considered libellous. Thirdly, "information that is usually supressed... username should be suppressed". If my username did indeed refer to said incident, no sane person would call that "suppressed information". The video linked has over 7000 views, which qualifies it publically available. In any case, your claims my username does not adhere to wikipedia policy has NO LEGS!

Thus it is clear to me that your criteria for a suitable nickname are largely based on your own prejudice. I have had numerous interactions with supposed "highpowered" users on this website in the months I've been editing and you're the first who has mentioned my (rather whimsical) username. I firmly believe you are a bully - this is obvious in how you refuse to address by my chosen name instead referring to me by abbreviation. When I saw that initialism I was shocked - was it some kind of slur? Some hate filled term to denigrate my identity? Such is the violence of being confronted with a name that's not your own. Being called a name that's not your own is a form of dehumanisation and happens to millions of black trans womxn all over the world and it's the same thing here. The same emotions, trauma, guilt, pondering, you have reinflicted upon me. You also immediately told me off for leaving a silly talk page comment. I am not your child and normal people don't tell strangers on the internet how disheartened they are with my joyous childlike sense of wonder. This is the behaviour of a manipulative, brow beating BULLY. Finally, when I wrote a comprehensive and polite reply to your comment here, hello and thanks included, you failed to respond to the meat of my reply and instead threatened me again. This would've been a good place to explain your reasoning as to why my username brings disrepute. Your failure to do so proves in my mind that you don't have any legitimate reasoning justifying your request to change my name. Perhaps you get some kind of joy from bullying, harassing, and generally ruining people's fun on the internet. You also don't use greetings or polite signoffs in your communication, which is extremely rude in Western culture (which should be annihilated by the way).

I will continue to wear my username proudly as a symbol to all those who have bullied or had their identities denied. I will NOT bow to the bullies.

Good day to you sir.

Chairs

Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Not to get too long winded here but "disrepute". Seriously? It would be impossible for the supposed namesake to be broguth further into "disrepute" considering he's already a member of a vile, hate-promoting and downright unfunny podcast. But he's not the inspiration for my name, that's mine alone, and I'd rather keep it secret as it involved some childhood trauma, so please dont ask as I will get very upset and maybe scream and cry and piss my pants (hypothetically speaking) Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and violation of the username policy (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.

I want to be clear, this is not just a username block. Your response to me above, 1,200 words of indignation at the thought that a username about a public figure shitting himself is offensive, is sufficiently absurd as to make me lose any assumption of good faith. I think you picked an intentionally disruptive username so you could do just this when called out for it. That makes your conduct disruptive editing, and makes me think you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

An important policy note: As this is not just a username block, but rather a conduct-based one, you may not create a new account unless this one is unblocked.

If you would like to argue that I am some pro-Trump admin on a power trip, you may do so in your unblock request, although I'll warn you in advance that requests along those lines are rarely successful. In advance, I give any admin permission to reverse this block or downgrade it to just a username block, if they disagree with my conclusion that you are intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)