Cmjohnson65
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
For the time being I will simply withdraw from any commentary or edits on any page. Except this one, for which I reserve the right to keep clean and clear of any commentary. If there are no objections or compelling reasons to continue the discussion then you may consider me to have gone on vacation until such time as I am better acquainted with community standards, rules of conduct, etc. and am better prepared to participate according to the rules and standards.
You may also consider this to be an apology for any misconduct I have engaged in.
For all that, my initial and primary concern still stands: Each content author and editor should make every effort to ensure that all content is presented with factual information and references and is not written with a social or political bias for or against any side of any issue. I do not believe that wiki has ever been intended to be a platform for peddling political or social beliefs, biases, or prejudices. Nor do I think it should become so.
Cmjohnson65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm over it. I will abide by community standards. Cmjohnson65 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
With edits such as this one we'll need more than "I'm over it". Huon (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (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.
Cmjohnson65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So why should I waste your time and mine both with some extensive bit of grovelling and kissing of backsides with nebulous promises not to do it again? Why don't you assume good faith and just hit the unblock button, and if I violate the rules, just block me again? You can do that, right? Cmjohnson65 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2016 (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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2016 (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.
Cmjohnson65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As you wish. 1: I understand what I have been blocked for, vandalism to personal pages, arising out of a personal belief that the person whose page I vandalized was editing and/or authoring content according to personal biases. Regardless of whether or not this is true, it does not give another individual a license to vandalize a page or edit outside of community guidelines.
2: I will not engage in such damaging or disruptive behaviors in the future.
3: Any content I edit or provide in the future shall be in full conformance with all applicable community standards and guidelines.
4: I agree to accept a permanent ban/block without contest if I should again violate those standards and guidelines.
Cmjohnson65 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were also blocked for your edits to White Pride. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2016 (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.
Cmjohnson65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I acknowledge those edits to the "white pride" page, which I felt, at the time, were morally justified as I considered the general content to be biased. It is as if the author of that content does not believe that it is possible for a white person to be proud of his or her own heritage without also being bigoted or racist toward non-whites, which is not a belief that I share as I myself am proud of my white heritage but not for reasons of color, but for the accomplishments of my ancestors. Simultaneously, I have no biases against people not of my own ethnic demographic. If I have any such biases, they are toward individuals for cause, not toward matters of epidermal melanin content, which is a factor entirely beyond the control of anyone. That being said, I acknowledge that it is improper to edit pages for perceived biases oin a unilateral basis, and if content is considered objectionable, Wiki has a means for that content to be discussed. It is not the place of an individual to unilaterally edit such content, and it should be reviewed instead by the community before any agreement is made that the content is a violation of community guidelines and thus should be edited. If in the future I find any such content which I believe to be biased, and I am so concerned about it that I feel action on it is in order, then I bring the matter to the attention of the community and not attempt unilateral edits. Cmjohnson65 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Between replacing an article with your rant full of personal biases, then attacking one of our editors I simply don't see the value in letting you come back. In over 8 years you have made a total of 9 edits to articles, none of them of any real value. We really don't have time for people that contribute nothing but cause trouble. I suggest you find another website. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:02, 1 July 2016 (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.
Cmjohnson65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The decision is ultimately yours. I respect your decision regardless of whether or not I agree with the thought process leading to it.
I do not promise to ask for unblocking again at a later time. I reserve the right to do that.
Before I finish this, though, please make note of these two points.
1: Though hardly a major contributor, I have made some positive contributions.
2: Some people have been banned more than once and still reinstated. With that in mind, and given my statements that acknowledge my misdeeds and accepting responsibility for them, you might wish to ask yourself if my "crime" was really worse than the actions of some people who've been reinstated for two (or possibly more) previous ban incidents.
Cmjohnson65 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You assert you have made positive contributions, but a look at these reveal an average of 1 article space edit per year, the last few of which were undoubtedly disruptive and worthy of a block. You have made too many unblock requests now, so I am turning off your talk page access, which means you will need to contact the Unblock Ticket Request System to handle an unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 1 July 2016 (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.
ANI notice
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, you were mentioned at WP:ANI#Cmjohnson65. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.