User talk:Slowe4333
Slowe4333 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)== August 2021 ==
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Demian—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you can't comprehend the thought of a female character possessing agency, so the existence of a female solely as a warm body upon which males paint their dreams really counts in your mind as "Women play a vital role". In fact, this is contradicted in the final sentence of this section, "Hesse uses them symbolically as facets of the depths of Sinclair's mind.". Women do not exist in this book - men exist and women are represented merely as the projected fantasies of the male protagonist. I HAVE READ AND STUDIED THE BOOK.
Welcome![edit]
Hi Slowe4333! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.
Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Your comment about activist editors[edit]
Hello, Slowe4333. Regarding your comment about unnamed "political activists on Wikipedia" at Talk:Shemale: for starters, you should always assume good faith on the part of other editors. They are here for the same reason you are, namely, to improve the encyclopedia. If, on the other hand, you have evidence that someone is writing articles in a non-neutral way based on an activist political agenda and not strictly based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you may mention that at their user talk page, for starters; if that doesn't resolve the issue, stronger measures are available to you. But be forewarned: if you make baseless accusations against another editor, that would be in violation of our WP:CIVILITY policy, and if you show a pattern of such behavior you risk sanctions for violation of our policies, so please do not make such accusations against any editor unless you have evidence for it. If you have any questions, feel free to reply below, or you may ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk about this or any other topic concerning Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
April 2024[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)@Brandmeister:see unblock request below Slowe4333 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Slowe4333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner" - The block was unnecessary to prevent damage or disruption because, through my edits, I have made an effort to correct disinformation, provide clarity, remove sentences without references, provide or add references and media, and remove opinions and/or non-neutral information. Many of my edits are on controversial topics, or are requests on controversial topics, so understandably there will be a backlash, and some may view my edits or edit requests through a lens of their own worldview that may not align with my edit requests.
Decline reason:
I see no pathway to you being unblocked to edit in the two formally designated contentious topics that you have exclusively edited about so far(Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gender issues). I'm actually skeptical there is any benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you, but I'll leave that to the next admin. If you want to edit about other, less controversial topics, agree to a topic ban and tell what topics you will contribute about instead. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2024 (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.
Slowe4333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason cited for declining my unblock request is the editor's personal feelings ("I'm actually skeptical there is any benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you..."), with no basis for that subjective feeling. 331dot ignored my explanation and reasoning, failing to respond to my assertions or give any cause for blocking me. There is no evidence or example provided to support a block or 331dot's personal feeling. Instead, 331dot 'doubled down' and provided confirmation that Wikipedia is a place for political activism, by citing that I had edited 2 contentious topics for clarity and neutrality. 331dot wants to ban me from improving such topics, or even making suggestions on improving them. Some people on Wikipedia want me silenced for not acquiescing to a particular agenda. I would love to see Wikipedia return to the neutral and informative guide it once was. There are vested interests in promoting a particular worldview or political slant in contentious topics and I find it ironic that those interested users succeed, while I am blocked for trying to make these entries politically neutral. I WILL NOT AGREE TO A TOPIC BAN WHEN I'M TRYING TO IMPROVE ARTICLES TO REMOVE BIAS. I do not agree to censorship in order to promote a particular worldview. It's also interesting how editing 10 pages(+/-1), is translated into 2 topics, according to 331dot ("...you being unblocked to edit in the two formally designated contentious topics that you have exclusively edited about so far...").(emphasis added)
Decline reason:
The last thing we need is another argumentative wikilawyer. The unblock queue is becoming severely backlogged, and some people just aren't a good fit for this website. If you want to engage in culture wars, there are plenty of other websites you can do that. You can't do that here, though. Seeing as how you intend to continue making the same edits if you're unblocked, I've revoked your ability to make further unblocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (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.
@331dot: yes, 331dot - I am pinging you so you can read my response; I'm not afraid to have this debate with you. The facts are on my side. Slowe4333 (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize, I incorrectly used the word "exclusively"; I should have said "largely". I am not interested in a debate with you; if another admin wishes to unblock you, they will take action. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jweiss11:Slowe4333 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
(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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.