Arl4545
Welcome!
edit
|
"An inactive chapter is not a chapter"? To me, that is like saying that a blue table is not a table.Naraht (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Because BYX does not grant charters to their "chapters" there is no actual evidence of one existing, therefore the only proof lies in membership, and if the membership does not exist, the "chapter" does not. Arl4545 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- From the article:
Chapters are authorized by a charter from the National Board of Directors and denominated by a letter of the Greek alphabet that corresponds with their order of admission into the fraternity (for example, the University of Texas is Alpha Chapter).[2]
: Care to try again?Naraht (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
With several close friends who are members and former members, I can assure you there is no charter. The lack of organization in BYX "Nationals" trickles its way down to the organization of ever local affiliate. This is the reason cited by those leaving the organization in many different universities. The lack of a physical charter, being just one example.
- Please read WP:REF. Wikipedia works off of Referenced material.Naraht (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kindly, no. Thanks for your contributions though. Arl4545 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- References are one of the five pillars around which Wikipedia is based See WP:Five_pillars . Those who do not follow the rules for Wikipedia can be banned by administrators.Naraht (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, shit. I had no idea it was so serious. Thanks for looking out buddy. Arl4545 (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please understand that Wikipdia's guidelines and consensus on the article's talk page is that the greek letters remain in that article. You have removed the letter twice. Please stop. Tiderolls 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now you are edit warring on the article's talk page. Wikipedia has a policy found at WP:Three revert rule that establishes a bright line that must not be crossed. You are jeopardizing your editing privileges if you continue. Tiderolls 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
"Edit warring", huh? I like the sound of that. Makes wikipedia sound a lot more bad ass.
March 2011
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ... discospinster talk 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Unblock
edit
Arl4545 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I assume, the block results from edits to a page that is very dear to my personal beliefs, but I can only assume as I have never had any interaction with the user who enacted the block. If I did not stand up for what I believe then I'm not sure what's worth standing up for. The edits were made because I saw information about Phi Gamma Delta that were misleading, in that a Wikipedia page is not one of the seven places the letters are allowed to be placed, per Fraternity constitution and bylaws. Removal is therefore appropriate in my eyes. After my edits were undone, I removed the letters again and again, until user "tiderolls" wrote on my talk page citing some rule I had never heard of. I made a sarcastic comment, because of the udder ridiculousness of the situation I found myself in however, I decided to give up editing and turn my efforts to discussing the removal of the letters, on the discussion page and the fraternity and sorority project page. The next time I logged on, before I made any other edits, I found myself blocked by a user with whom I had never had any interaction. If the user had contacted me before hand they would know of my new approach. Per the wikipedia blocking policy "even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." I believe that my blocking also goes against the purpose of blocking, "Blocking should not be punitive". Arl4545 (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As the text you repeatedly removed says, "If you repeatedly remove these letters you may be blocked - WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not a member of this fraternity, so is not bound by its by-laws." Blocking is not punitive but preventative - it is there to prevent you from further damage to Wikipedia. To be unblocked, you must convince us that you understand the problems you have caused (judging by your reply below, you do not), that you will not repeat them, and what useful contributions you will make if you are unblocked. People who make comments like this are not welcome on Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:21, 21 March 2011 (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.
Please explain why you chose to harass others by insulting them here, and then you kept putting said insults back on that discussion page here and here. It also seems like you are not willing to acknowledge that we accept only material that is verifiable via your comment here; that is a huge problem in itself. –MuZemike 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I posted that because it's funny, and I believe it. At the time I did not understand the purpose of the discussion page, or anything on wikipedia for that matter. Also, while I chose to respond to comments posted on my discussion page sarcastically, I understood what was being posted by other users. I will cite the same excerpt from the Wikipedia blocking policy: "even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." Arl4545 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)