Chimchongchiggedydo

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm HickoryOughtShirt?4. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Natalie Alyn Lind, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alyvia Alyn Lind, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Misandry, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misandry. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Misandry that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply

In reply to your question on Jim1138's talkpage, you should understand several things:

• The burden is on the proposer of a change to justify the change according to reliable sourcing and to achieve a consensus that the change is appropriate. See WP:BURDEN
• Changes made to sourced material must either stick to the source provided or be justified by new sources, subject to consensus that those sources are appropriate. Editors can be blocked for persistently making unsourced or poorly sourced changes.
• You initially made no attempt to source your changes at first.
• Those editors were under no obligation to "achieve consensus" for plainly unsourced changes - you are.
• The editor who usually gets sanctioned for edit-warring is the one who initiates it and persists with all the reverts, as repeated reverts against consensus or policy disrupt the encyclopedia
• You stuck in a dictionary definition as a bare URL. Sourcing to dictionaries is discouraged - Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it relies on in-depth sources that provide detail and context
• You've provided no better sources, despite being asked by other editors to do some research
• You've started accusing other editors of "double standards" and bias (by the way, it's not "bias opinion," it's "biased opinion") while trying to force your preferred version without sufficient sourcing, and then moved to repetition of arguments that have little or nothing to do with content, but are instead commentary on other editors (yes, I'm aware of the "smear" comment by another editor higher up, I'll get to that). You then moved into an aggressive dismissal of other editors [1] that is a straightforward rejection of policy-based objections in favor of doing what you want to do. That kind of attitude is sanctionable.
• This topic and related topics have seen disruption from men's rights activists, obvious misogynists and a variety of trolls. People don't have a lot of patience with editors who won't comply with policy and simply try to bludgeon the topic - see WP:BLUDGEON.

Please take the concerns of other editors seriously, and edit within policy. I wouldn't have used the word "smear," but two wrongs don't make a right, and you have to back up substantial changes of the kind you made with substantial sources, rather than claim eerybody's against you because of a single comment. Since you haven't bothered to do that, the other editors don't have to continue to engage with you. You have instead taken an increasingly aggressive and combative attitude toward other editors. Please reconsider your approach to other editors and to changes to content. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion, please aid me in understanding your response; I looked through your message and have some questions. Thank you for your assistance regarding this.

In reply to your question on Jim1138's talkpage, you should understand several things: The burden is on the proposer of a change to justify the change according to reliable sourcing and to achieve a consensus that the change is appropriate. See WP:BURDEN I understand. Changes made to sourced material must either stick to the source provided or be justified by new sources, subject to consensus that those sources are appropriate. Editors can be blocked for persistently making unsourced or poorly sourced changes. Understood. You initially made no attempt to source your changes at first. True, however my last edit was properly sourced (to the best of my knowledge) and was reverted anyway. Those editors were under no obligation to "achieve consensus" for plainly unsourced changes - you are. Understood, but my last edit was properly sourced (to the best of my knowledge), and was reverted anyway. I posted on the talk page to attempt to “achieve consensus” , but my additions were removed without any response on the talk page. The editor who usually gets sanctioned for edit-warring is the one who initiates it and persists with all the reverts, as repeated reverts against consensus or policy disrupt the encyclopedia Understood, however I never ‘persisted with all the reverts’ - every edit I made was a different, updated version, because I was modifying my addition based on suggestions in an attempt to adhere to policy and edit appropriately. You stuck in a dictionary definition as a bare URL. Sourcing to dictionaries is discouraged - Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it relies on in-depth sources that provide detail and context Understood, however, my most recent edit was not a bare URL and was properly sourced (to the best of my knowledge), yet it was reverted anyway, despite trying to achieve consensus on the talk page. You've provided no better sources, despite being asked by other editors to do some research That is not true - yes, my first few edits on the page were not properly sourced, but I listened to suggestions and I believe my most recent edit was properly sourced. You've started accusing other editors of "double standards" and bias (by the way, it's not "bias opinion," it's "biased opinion") while trying to force your preferred version without sufficient sourcing, and then moved to repetition of arguments that have little or nothing to do with content, but are instead commentary on other editors (yes, I'm aware of the "smear" comment by another editor higher up, I'll get to that). You then moved into an aggressive dismissal of other editors [1] that is a straightforward rejection of policy-based objections in favor of doing what you want to do. That kind of attitude is sanctionable. Thanks for the clarification. I did not try to ‘force my preferred version without sufficient sourcing’ - as previously mentioned, I listened to other editors and modified my additions based on their suggestions. I think you are referring to the following : "@Binksternet: Wow, all right then. Since you are unwilling to answer my questions, your actions are not neutral, AND you consider explaining yourself a waste of time, I expect you to refrain from disrupting any further edits to this page. I'm not sure why you are behaving in this manner, but let it be known that I have not been making disruptive edits and have tried to achieve consensus among editors. “ - I don’t understand how you consider this is an “aggressive dismissal of other editors” - the editor had already dismissed themselves and refused to provide any justification for removing my additions. This comment was factual, not emotional: the editor was unwilling to answer my questions - fact. The editor’s actions were not neutral - fact. The editor expressed that they considered explaining themselves a waste of time - fact. Expecting ANYONE to refrain from disruptive edits is policy, right? I had not been making disruptive edits or removing anyone’s additions, and had tried to achieve consensus among editors. Please explain to me what, in this entire comment, are you considering to be an “aggressive dismissal of other editors”? I’m not trying to be argumentative or aggressive, and I have not dismissed anyone that had not already dismissed themselves… I listen to other editors and their suggestions, despite being repeatedly ignored and disrespected. Please explain this - seriously, I’m not being sarcastic or antagonistic; I’ve tried my best to follow policy and always try to say what I mean and mean what I say. This topic and related topics have seen disruption from men's rights activists, obvious misogynists and a variety of trolls. People don't have a lot of patience with editors who won't comply with policy and simply try to bludgeon the topic - see WP:BLUDGEON. I am not a mens rights activist, misogynist, or troll. I am trying to add factual, verifiable information. If I kept trying to add the same thing, without a source, I could understand how it could be considered ‘bludgeoning’, but that is not what I did. I always try to comply with policy and take into consideration everything suggested to me. Please take the concerns of other editors seriously, and edit within policy.

I do, and I am trying to.

I wouldn't have used the word "smear," but two wrongs don't make a right, and you have to back up substantial changes of the kind you made with substantial sources, rather than claim eerybody's against you because of a single comment.

When did I claim that everybody is ‘against me because of a single comment’?

Since you haven't bothered to do that, the other editors don't have to continue to engage with you.

I DID ‘bother to do that’. I believe my most recent edit was properly sourced, and I attempted to reach consensus on the talk page, but my additions were removed without any reply on the talk page.

You have instead taken an increasingly aggressive and combative attitude toward other editors.

I don’t mean to be combative and am not sure what I have done that you consider ‘increasingly aggressive’ - please explain.

Please reconsider your approach to other editors and to changes to content.

I have… every time anyone has told me to do something differently, I have done so (with the exception being the “smear”).

Sourcing to a thesaurus is even less useful than sourcing to a dictionary. To repeat, Wikipedia relies on in-depth scholarly discussion, and dictionaries and thesauruses lack the context and background to usefully inform an encyclopedic discussion. A dictionary cite is better than nothing, but ...

You appear to have declared that other editors are applying a double standard, for no obvious reason that I could see apart from the ill-considered "smear" comment. I provided a diff [2] of your aggressive and inappropriate response to other editors' expressed wish to disengage from the discussion in the absence of any better sourcing and your increasing personalization of the discussion.

You've been harassing Jim1138 by reverting his removal of your comments. Don't do that.

Please don't post unformatted walls of text. Nobody's likely to read it all. Keep it short.

Drmies' advice on the talkpage echoes my own - please take into account the amount of disruption articles like this have seen as an explanation for why other editors don't feel great enthusiasm for a very-in-depth discussion of your changes or of sourcing policy with you - it gets exhausting after a while, and people get testy.

People have gotten testy to the point that articles like this on gender-related topics are subject to special restrictions as a result of arbitration cases. I don't think that adding a few scantily-sourced words is a big deal, but it's best that you be aware. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misandry. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring User talk:Jim1138

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Jim1138. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? I have not engaged in edit warring, at all, ever, on wikipedia. I have explained numerous times that I am a new user, yet when asking for assistance, respectfully, you (@Jim1138) refuse to answer any of my questions. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a collaborative effort? You say to avoid editing disruptively, while simultaneously removing my questions without answering them at all??? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This [3] and this [4] are edit-warring, and can be perceived as harassment if it keeps happening. If an editor removes a comment from their talkpage, it should not be restored outside of unusual circumstances. They're not obligated to respond to you. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Your username

Something I meant to mention earlier: your username is very close to an offensive mockery of Chinese people - see Ching chong. It doesn't encourage other editors to take you seriously, and I strongly advise you to change it. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Uh, okay... people can find anything to be offensive. My username has nothing to do with "ching chong", and jumping to conclusions because something seems similar to something that some people may find offensive seems pretty absurd. I was under the impression wikipedia was for objectivity and collaboration, not nit-picking and whining. Other editors shouldn't need encouragement to take me as seriously, and should treat me with the same respect and neutrality as anyone else... In my short time here, nearly every interaction I've had reinforces the opinion that people on here are hypocritical, disrespectful antagonists who throw the book (so to speak) at less experienced users while completely ignoring the same rules when it suits them. Very disheartening. I expected much better, or at least for the members to act in a more professional manner, maybe even some feigned respect. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Acroterion, valid point. So--is this a play on "something oriental" or not, Chimchongchiggedydo? Drmies (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What point is valid, Drmies? You ask if "this is a play on "something oriental" or not" - did you read my response to Acroterion? "My username has nothing to do with "ching chong"". Does that not answer your question? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Bluster really isn't the way to address the problem that your username appears to be a borderline violation of policy on this global encyclopedia. It does nothing to enhance your credibility. Your response to rather mild inquiry reinforces the combative impression that you seem to be determined to convey. You must work together with other editors and convince them of your willingness to listen to others, rather than respond to all conversations with accusations. Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Accusations? Ironically, you are accusing me of making accusations of other editors... inside a discussion you began to make accusations of me. I say what I mean and mean what I say, yet you incorrectly interpret my words as determination to be combative when they are not made to be personal or antagonistic in nature. Your wording is very opinionated("rather mild inquiry", "combative impression" that I seem "determined to convey") - I would appreciate if you used less subjective, 'colorful' language... I try to be objective, factual and specific, especially after being told to maintain a neutral point of view. Please explain what accusations I made that you are referring to. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What page am I accused of edit warring on? None of my edits damage or disrupt. I understand that my additions to the page ‘Misandry’ are invalidated due to the source being ‘thesaurus.com’ and will not attempt to make additions to this page without an applicable source. All of my contributions are productive, and none of them remove or destroy content. I have tried to achieve consensus on the talk page of ‘Misandry’ but was not informed that my source (thesaurus.com) was not applicable until recently, after which I did not attempt making edits using this source; up until this, other editors either ignored my contributions, refused to explain their reasons for removing the content I added, and/or engaged in degrading personal attacks. " Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.” I have tried to collaborate to achieve a consensus, but this is not possible when being ignored and not provided with answers to applicable questions; I have never intentionally edited disruptively; other users have repeatedly reverted my edits, without informing me or explaining why, and refused to explain their actions. When warned that I “appear to be engaged in an edit war”, I have refrained from editing the page in question and requested assistance. Please advise. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your very last edit before the block was to misandry, and it's reverting someone else who had reverted you. That's edit-warring, and it's after multiple warnings. Huon (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My very last edit before the block was to revert the reversion of misandry - reverting my edit was summarized as "wikipedia is not a dictionary", however the source was not from a dictionary. I explained this when I undid the reversion: "which is why I did not re-add the dictionary definition. The term added is from Merriam-Webster." Merriam-Webster was already sourced in the article.Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring "because I am right" is still edit warring and is still prohibited by WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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'm not claiming to have engaged in edit warring "because I am right", I'm stating that I did not engage in edit warring, at all. When warned about edit warring, I immediately refrained from making repeated reversions. I have always tried to adhere to policy here. I have not, and will not, engage in edit warring. The addition was reverted without any applicable explanation, and I undid that reversion, a single time, with a pertinent explanation; I did not attempt to revert the article after this single reversion. I understand that whether I'm "right" or not is irrelevant; I undid a destructive reversion, one time, when the explanation given for that reversion was not applicable - also, the user refused to communicate with me. How does this constitute 'edit warring'? (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring this singular reversion does not constitute engaging in an 'edit war'.) Why is the user responsible for repeated reversions, who refused to communicate or explain these reversions, not penalized for their engagement in edit warring? Thanks. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your block has expired, please do not use the unblock template to do anything but to request action on an active block.

As to your questions, they have been addressed repeatedly. However, when I have a little time I'll try to address them (again) unless somebody else does so first. In the meantime, please resist the urge to do what got you blocked: don't revert at Misandry to your preferred version without explicit consensus. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I will not use the unblock template unless I am blocked again.

The majority of my questions have not been answered at all, let alone repeatedly. I will appreciate it when you address my concerns, but you can skip the questions that were already appropriately answered.

I will refrain from reverting edits on ‘Misandry’.

I appreciate your response, however, your subjective and inauspicious terminology is bothersome; I was under the impression that all users were required to maintain a neutral point of view.

Claiming to know ‘urges’ that I have not expressed is unfounded conjecture based on your perception and your subjective opinion - not objective, factual, or neutral. Please explain to me why you consider your comments and accusations to be warranted, and how you consider these personal opinions and statements exempt from the guidelines regarding neutrality. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the commitment to avoid edit-warring.

One problem I see is that you're putting an awfully literal spin on commonplace phrases like "please resist the urge," using up valuable electrons. NPOV applies to article content, we're not obligated to treat problematic behavior according to some kind of neutral POV - a problem is a problem. In your case, the problems leading to your block were these reverts: [5], [6], [7], [8]+[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. That's straight-up edit-warring, eight reverts by you to substantially the same content, with seven editors disagreeing with your edits. That's why nobody else was blocked, you were the central figure in all of those reverts. It's called edit-warring against consensus, and you can't do that. My comments are warranted because you keep thinking it's OK for you to do that because you think you're right. Being right or not isn't the issue, it's you edit-warring to force your edits in over the objections of a bunch of other editors. You've been told this by a lot of people by now, including five administrators, who have specifically addressed it in block messages and reviews, and here we are, yet again, explaining the problem to you.

In this work environment (because that's what it is), what's important is what other people think - about your edits, your sources, your username, and whether you give evidence that you're willing to cooperate and work together. We can only judge your contributions by what we see here, and that's how other editors determine whether your work advances the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Using correct terminology while refraining from using inapplicable, improper or deceptive language is a “problem”? I don’t understand how you can justify that... The PURPOSE of language is effective communication, and the implementation of incorrect words, terms and phrases causes confusion and discord.

I feel that using correct verbiage is paramount; using colloquialisms and “commonplace phrases” should be avoided (particularly when communicating with someone via the internet) because what you consider to be a commonplace phrase may seem like utter gibberish to someone in a different locale (and vice-versa). Why choose to express yourself in a manner that can very easily be misconstrued or not understood?

I understand that NPOV applies to article content, but you try to justify opinion-driven actions by stating that “a problem is a problem” - yes, a problem is a problem, but in any professional setting it is customary to maintain civility and treat others with respect, and you yourself described Wikipedia as a “work environment”. There’s a difference between dealing with a problem professionally and dealing with a problem personally, and the vast majority of interactions here have been overwhelmingly disrespectful on a personal level and decidedly UN-professional.

I vehemently disagree that the edits you reference constitute “straight-up edit warring” - the content was NOT the same throughout them. In fact, only 3 of the revisions you reference were reversions - 7, 12, and 13 - while the other 6 edits were either adding new content or attempting to add a source. (also, you mentioned "eight reverts by (me)”, but you referenced nine… only three of which were reversions.)

You stated that your "comments are warranted because (I) keep thinking it's OK for (me) to do that” - you are claiming to have insight into my thoughts, which you do not. You state that I am trying to justify my actions "because (I) think (I’m) right”, and again, you are not privy to my thoughts or motivations unless I share them with you, and I did not - quite the opposite, actually; when appealing my block, I specified that "I understand that whether I'm "right" or not is irrelevant”.

You say that "Being right or not isn't the issue, it's you edit-warring to force your edits in over the objections of a bunch of other editors.” and "here (you) are, yet again, explaining the problem to (me)” - 'yet again', I never stated or suggested that I thought ‘being right or not’ was the issue; re-hashing this explanation is unnecessary and serves no purpose, other than attempting to belittle me by making it seem as if you had repeatedly explained something to me that I still don’t comprehend… disregarding the fact that I have previously stated and explained my understanding... Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Diff of personal attack
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Chimchongchiggedydo that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 talk 07:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Uh, what? I was told that NPOV was only for articles, not talk pages, and I have received many disrespectful, impolite interactions from other editors (INCLUDING YOU!); why are they permitted? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please format your talk per help:talk pages / wp:Indentation. You left out a colon ":". If you wish, open a ticket on wp:ANI. Jim1138 talk 02:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? I get chewed out for saying "bias opinion" instead of "biased opinion", then am told not to 'nitpick' when clarifying that a source was from 'thesaurus.com' after it was incorrectly stated as being from 'dictionary.com'. Now you're nitpicking and correcting me when I forget a colon. I don't want to open a ticket on wp:ANI, I want you (and everyone else) to refrain from being hypocritical, and to interact with me in a polite and respectful manner - per your own "core principles". Is that too much to ask, for you to follow the policies that you are supposed to uphold and abide by? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Actress (disambiguation) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You are a hypocrite. I don't care if you respond here, or if you respond on your talk page where I left a message. I adhered to BRD. You did not. You failed to respond for 7 days and then accuse me of edit warring when YOU are the one who made incorrect reversions. I didn't 'undo another editors work' - you did. Have some accountability at least. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you removed my message from your talk page. Care to explain yourself?

You said "per WP:BRD it is up to you to gain a different consensus then the one that already exists - BTW the current talk page discussion shows that this is the correct version" - I did attempt to achieve consensus - you failed to respond for 7 days, and no-one provided any information that contradicts my statements. You claim that "the current talk page discussion shows that this is the correct version" - where exactly? I am unable to see anything that matches this description or "shows that this is the correct version". I looked at WP:BRD, and it appears that I did follow these guidelines - and you are not following these guidelines yourself.

B: "if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." What do you consider to be a "reasonable amount of time"? I received no response for 7 days.

R: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun." You provided no information, evidence, or links in the edit summary to dispute my correction of the page. A discussion HAD begun on the talk page - you engaged in this discussion but have not responded for a week.

D: "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." I did attempt to discuss the edit, and I provided reasons for the edit on the article's talk page. You were a part of this discussion but stopped responding. I waited 7 days and then proceeded to make the suggested edit.

How exactly do you think I am not adhering to BRD??? Furthermore, why are YOU not following these guidelines? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:MarnetteD. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously. I at no point "purposefully" nor "blatantly" harassed ANYONE. I followed ALL GUIDELINES in interacting with this user. They have repeatedly violated and ignored wiki policies and guidelines. They refused to respond on the talk page of an article they repeatedly reverted without proper explanation. They refused to respond on my talk page, after they accused ME of edit warring. They refused to respond on their talk page when I attempted to reach out, as suggested in guidelines. None of my actions constitute harassment, and I have been following all policies and guidelines. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Harassment

Stop harassing MarnetteD. Now. Acroterion (talk)

Excuse me? An explanation would be nice. I at no point harassed anyone. The user you mention has repeatedly reverted edits without attempting to reach consensus or respond on the talk page. I attempted to reach out via their talk page, to prevent "edit warring". Please, tell me how I should have responded. I'm also interested in why this user is permitted to repeatedly violate the guides and policies here. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Read the edit summary and then you go back and re-post two minutes later, that's harassment. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're badgering another editor, then trying to claim that the real problem is with them when they get tired of being badgered and ask you to stay away. This is the latest in a series of problematic behaviors from you. Users aren't obligated to engage with you if there's no evidence that you're going to ever listen to anyone else. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Badgering another editor? No, I am not, and was not. I'm not assuming users are obligated to engage with me, I'm expecting a response when my edits are reverted without proper explanation. When the user doing the reverts refuses to respond on the appropriate talk page, I left a message on their talk page. Tell me, how are they "tired of being badgered" when I make a single post on their talk page?

Do you know why I made that single post on their talk page? It was because THEY refused to explain their reason for reverting an edit I made. So if I 'claim that the real problem is with them', after THEY choose to make reversions with no explanation, and THEY chose to ignore my attempt to achieve consensus on the appropriate talk page, and THEY choose to ignore and delete the post on their talk page regarding their lack of response, and THEY posted on my page, and THEY refused to explain themselves yet again, yeah, I have no problem with making the claim that THEIR behavior is problematic.

You make the rather bold assertion that there is "no evidence that (I'm) going to ever listen to anyone else". Is there ANY post directed at me that I have removed or ignored? Am I making reversions without explanation or justification? Do I ignore messages that I receive from other users? My talk page is evidence of my willingness to listen and respond to others, yet you're seriously going to claim that there is 'no evidence' that I was 'going to ever listen to anyone else'? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a debate - you were plainly harassing another user. Whether you think you weren't is indicative of a problem with listening. You've been plainly told so.

You think there's no problem with your username. You think other editors should agree with your edits, and and if they don't, it's not your problem. You think you don't have to pay attention to warnings.

That's a problem with listening, a vital skill on this collaborative project. Please consider that when everybody is telling you that there's a problem with what you're doing, then there's a decent chance that there's a problem with what you're doing. Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, this is not a debate. It is a matter of fact. I at no point engaged in harassing any user - ever - here on wikipedia.

You have yet again claimed to have insight into my thoughts - you don’t. You are not privy to my thoughts or motivations unless I share them with you, so once more I reiterate, please refrain from making accusations based on your assumptions of my thoughts. You claim that I “think other editors should agree with (my) edits, and if they don’t, it’s not (my) problem” - another falsehood. At no point have I ignored other users for not agreeing with me, nor have I invalidated their opinions or contributions. If another editor disagrees with my edits, they should voice their opinion on the matter on the associated talk page to achieve consensus. You attempt to assign “a problem with listening” to me, which is false for multiple reasons. Firstly, my hearing is excellent - ‘listening’ is the wrong term to use in this medium. Secondly, I have responded to every conversation in a timely and appropriate manner. Thirdly, I have always attempted to adhere to wiki policies and guidelines, especially when given advice to see a specific guideline - and more often than not, the user suggesting that I see a specific guideline does not adhere to the guideline they themselves brought up. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Mens rea isn't required here. Stop your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please elaborate; what behavior are you referring to. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Actress (disambiguation), you may be blocked from editing. MarnetteD|Talk 05:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards." You removed my comment from your talk page without responding to it. You have not responded on the articles talk page.

"If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Actress (disambiguation), you may be blocked from editing." Well that's interesting, especially considering that YOU have been making destructive reverts; I have not been, nor do I intend to 'disrupt Wikipedia'. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

When you removed my comment on your talk page you said "perhaps you forgot that I asked you to not post here" - this directly conflicts with your instructions to "discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page". Care to explain this paradox, and/or why you are refusing to respond other than to destructively revert my edits? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Actress (disambiguation). MarnetteD|Talk 23:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Chimchongchiggedydo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. bonadea contributions talk 20:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To which "personal attacks" are you referring? I have not made any personal attacks, on my talk page or elsewhere on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have reviewed the "Indications that a user clearly may not be here to build an encyclopedia" on the WP:NOTHERE page, and NONE of these indications are applicable to this situation. I could go point-by-point if necessary. I have not "trolled" whatsoever. I have not been 'edit warring', but the majority of my contributions have been removed without justification or explanation; when trying to achieve consensus and follow Wiki guidelines for doing so, the user reverting my edits refuses to respond. When attempting to achieve consensus on an articles talk page, I have responded to every editor who has given their input, and refrained from modifying articles if my suggested edit does not have consensus. I am neither a "troll" nor a "block evader", and have been repeatedly mistreated, disrespected and ignored despite trying to adhere to all wiki guidelines and policies and edit collaboratively. I do not seek drama to provoke a reaction, my goal is to contribute to wikipedia by correcting errors and false or contradictory information. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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 edit was trolling, and then you doubled down and argued and edit-warred and created tons of drama about it. Every problem you have had on Wikipedia started right there. You have never acknowledged your error, which raises serious questions about competence. Then you trolled again to start more of a shitstorm. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This edit was not trolling and I'm not sure why you are interpreting it as such. It was the second article I ever attempted to contribute to, and I was not familiar with wikipedia; when this edit was removed, I asked for assistance and followed suggestions to comply with wiki guidelines. ::You claim that I "have never acknowledged (my) error" - this is FALSE. I have no problem acknowledging an error when I make one, and have even done so on this very page: "I understand that whether I'm "right" or not is irrelevant"; "I will refrain from reverting edits on ‘Misandry’."; "I understand that my additions to the page ‘Misandry’ are invalidated due to the source being ‘thesaurus.com’ and will not attempt to make additions to this page without an applicable source."Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block encompasses much more than that your edits at Misandry; in your short time here you've displayed a significant amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, uncollegial behviour and a persistent propensity for edit warring. Given your history of editing tendentiously and the discussion on this page, I don't believe that unblocking you at this time would benefit the encyclopedia. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

• As I see it, you have been tendentiously arguing against consensus and point-blank refusing to accept that a) decisions are made here by consensus and b) consensus is against you. Instead you insist that you are right, and that reliable sources that disagree with you are wrong. That is absolutely not the way things are done at Wikipedia, and I see no chance of your being unblocked unless you make a seriously convincing commitment to change your general approach to cooperative encyclopedia building. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the filter log useful information in this case? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You say that I am "refusing to accept that decisions are made here by consensus" - I have never stated this, I understand that decisions are made here by consensus, which is why I have attempted to achieve consensus on talk pages. If I refused to accept that decisions are made by consensus, I would not have done so. You assert that I refuse to accept that "consensus is against" me, which is also false - I have refrained from making edits against consensus. I have openly voiced my willingness to comply with wiki guidelines as well:

"I understand that whether I'm "right" or not is irrelevant”.

"I will refrain from reverting edits on ‘Misandry’."

"I have not, and will not, engage in edit warring."

"My goal is to contribute to wikipedia by correcting errors and false or contradictory information."

It's interesting that you have not acknowledged YOUR error in asserting that I "never acknowledged" mine; do you still have serious questions about my competence, or are these queries nullified since they are predicated on a lie? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I know you don't say those things, but you do those things - the evidence of your failure to listen and to accept when consensus is against you is plain to see at Talk:Actress (disambiguation). Anyway, I was just giving my recommendations. If you see my analysis as being "predicated on a lie" and you wish to seek unblock using a different approach, you are obviously free to do so - and whoever reviews it will do so independently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously supporting my block (and refusing to unblock me) because of motives you assume I have, and statements that I haven't made - while ignoring what I actually say and do?

I did not 'fail to listen and accept consensus' on the Actress_(disambiguation) page - I refrained from editing when consensus was against me. I answered every response when discussing my suggested edit on the talk page, did not ignore comments that I did not agree with, and did not make disruptive edits when my suggestions were against consensus; is disagreeing against policy here? What recommendations are you referring to?

I don't "see (your) analysis as being "predicated on a lie""; It isn't a matter of opinion or perspective, its' a factually incorrect statement that you made against me. Do you deny making an error when you claimed that I "have never acknowledged (my) error, which raises serious questions about competence"? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block. IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. Please use the account creation request form to request an account under your preferred username. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message. Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page. Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo CheckUser blocks without permission from a CheckUser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Socking with renewed PAs

FTR: 99.203.28.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --bonadea contributions talk 19:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked - he doesn't deserve the luxury of warnings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I am strongly opposed to unblocking this editor. Not that I think anyone is seriously considering it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Same here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I looked up "sock puppetry", is that what you are referring to? I'm not sure what a "renewed PAs" is. The "luxury of warnings"? Why, in your opinion, do I not "deserve" this "luxury", Boing! said Zebedee? I have a suspicion you are acting this way because I called you out on making false statements and lying about me. Based on your actions, it seems that this is NOT a place for collaborative, professional conduct (as I had previously thought and been told), but rather a platform for infantile tantrums, bullying, lies and hypocrisy. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

PA = personal attack. You are being pedantic. It's clear you are the ip editor editing while logged out. This is not allowed. The edit comment was a personal attack and not allowed. You are not doing yourself any favors. Stop "looking into every specific wording and putting words in quotes". --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You used quotation marks incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.249.243 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

They will be building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place before this editor is unblocked. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Au revoir! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)