Yihman1

April 2017

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, List of school massacres by death toll. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. This is silly. We do not put warnings on the numerous articles we have on guns to not kill people, we do not put warnings on the numerous lists we have of other types of massacres not to massacre. IMO, this is much more about your warped worldview than Wikipedia. If someone needs a warning not to kill people, they are very unlikely to heed it. This seems much more like trolling than editing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Issa Rae . Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Poorly referenced? Okay here is a youtube video 7 seconds long of the racist statement in question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER2MDjL3tfU You claim it is poorly referenced? I used both Time, and Variety as a reference. I thought that 2 reliable sources such as these would be adequate references, but since you are requesting more, I will add more for there are many more.

As for your claim that it is "Defamatory", that is simply absurd because she has a lawsuit against every person who wrote an article telling what she said if it is libel.

It is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to include scandals that celebrities have been in on their Wikipedia page! I could show you a hundred Wikipedia pages with such content.

Yihman1 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did with this edit to Issa Rae. I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI

your unique combination of vandalism, BLP violations, edit warring, and POV pushing mean it is slightly difficult to figure out what noticeboard to report you to. I chose WP:ANI. There is a thread about you there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

test

As you're aware by now, you've been blocked from editing. The standard template is below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

By "disruptive editing", I mean violating WP:BLP, and also vandalism, edit warring, and POV pushing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright Floquenbeam, you have serious issues, and need to stop it with your Social Justice Warrior Bigotry. You are personally guilty of practically everything you have accused me of, along with far worse infractions as you have been here nearly a decade, and are an administrator and should know better. You are an individual with both an agenda, and significant editing authority.

The main difference between you, and I is you are a bigot with a ban hammer, and like to abuse your power. You are simply a deletionist.

I on the other hand am an inclusionist and accurate contributor that has been silenced.

Here are the order of events of what transpired by the way:

Issa Rae makes a blatantly racist statement prior to the Emmy awards.

I see this on the news, and google her name. I see that this scandal is a major headline. There are dozens of articles about it. Some for her, some against her. Either way this is the most media coverage that Issa Rae has ever seen in her entire life.

I type in "Issa Rae" in the wikipedia search field. I quickly scan over her page, and see absolutely nothing in regards to her recent racist scandal.

I write exactly 3 sentences about her scandal, and I will break all 3 down for you, along with the section head.

Sentence 1: Issa Rae has received some backlash for remarks made in an interview prior to the 2017 Emmy Awards.

Sentence 1 can not be disputed as untrue. There were a great many news articles, and opinion pieces about her statement in the interview.

Sentence 2: The statement in question was "I'm rooting for everyone black."

Sentence 2 can also not be disputed as untrue. Her statement has been caught on video, and can be seen on numerous youtube channels. It is quoted directly in numerous publications about the event as well.

Sentence 3: She planned on judging nominees based solely on skin color without reference to talent or achievements.

Sentence 3: Since sentences 1, and 2 are proven to be true then sentence 3 must also be true. It is a completely logical statement, that is non inflammatory, and is an eloquent way of putting into few words why so many people have found this racist statement to be offensive. However to be fair this was a direct Tucker Carlsen quote which he said on his news show, that millions of people watch, and believe and it would have behooved me to attribute the quote to him.

The section head that I included "Open Racial Hostility"

This can be broken down into 3 words, all of which are true when put together.

Word 1: "Open". Saying something on camera in a interview in front of millions of viewers can not be disputed as an open statement. An alternative word "Public" could have also been used, but I feel that "Open" is the better choice as to me it just hits the ear better.

Word 2: "Racial". Again she mentioned black people in her statement. So mentioning people of any ethnicity is a racial statement. Even non defamatory ones. Were I to say "Black people ancestrally come from Africa." It would still be a racial statement even though it just stating a well known fact. It's always a racial statement when race is mentioned in the statement.

Word 3: "Hostility" a strong word, but an accurate word under the circumstances. To show favoritism of one group over others in spite of talent, and achievement can be seen by most reasonable people as an act of hostility.

Stop being such a close minded bigot in the future. Just because you do not like the facts does not mean that they are not facts. You should be ashamed of yourself for your big headed close mindedness. You owe me an apology for your bigoted hostility, and abuse of power. I have chosen not to use the unblock template as I believe a closed minded bigot such as yourself who aggressively deletes posts that they disagree with, in spite of being factually accurate, well sourced, and neutral would be reasonable enough to unblock anyone in my position.

You are the troll, not me.

Yihman1 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You say I have chosen not to use the unblock template as I believe a closed minded bigot such as yourself who aggressively deletes posts that they disagree with, in spite of being factually accurate, well sourced, and neutral would be reasonable enough to unblock anyone in my position. I'm fairly sure that's not what you meant to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I can't help also pointing out that I never called this account a "troll"; I called User:Fartstar a troll. So when you say You are the troll, not me above, you're also admitting to sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

• As you have been using this talk page to make multiple personal attacks, I have revoked your ability to edit it. Please see WP:UTRS if you wish to make an appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)