User talk:Turkeybutt JC

My userboxes

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, Turkeybutt JC. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

Userboxes on Meta[edit]

Hi Turkeybutt JC, answering to your question about userboxes: userboxes on Wikipedia work only on that wiki, but there are many userboxes here on Meta, all of them placed in the Category:Userboxes. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFH[edit]

Hi, that's clearly off-topic for RFH. Please don't repost it. Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Meta without further warnings. Turkeybutt JC (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

{{unblock| Notice: This is a request for unblock on English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia as I am unwilling to appeal to the Unblock Ticket Request System because I refuse to associate my account with an email address or other contact information. I want to do it intra-wiki. You can say that I should be doing it on the respective Wikipedias but I'm indefinitely blocked from both Wikipedias and I can't edit on my own talk pages. And I refuse to use an email on Wikipedia, Youtube or ROBLOX.

I'd like to appeal my blocks to other wikis and get intra-wiki responses to see if I can get out of this block for persistent disruption. I would like a tutorial on how to not disrupt Wikipedia. (and don't do a sarcastic "don't edit articles on Wikipedia" or anything like that) I want to edit constructively instead of disruptively and I don't know how. And don't talk in the consensus' tone since learning that way would just make my disruption worse according to consensus. I'd like some polite and civil advice on how to edit constructively. The Wikipedia Adventure didn't help. The Wikipedia help places didn't help. Reading the policies, guidelines and essays didn't help. I refuse adoption by a tutor.
By saying that I don't belong on Wikipedia or that I am dumb for lecturing experienced editors who say they know what they're doing and that I don't. That constitutes personal attacking. If I don't know what I am doing, then I don't know that I am being disruptive. So why should I be blocked for doing things I didn't know I did? That sounds uncivil, impolite and unreasonable. Don't be a jerk and don't call anyone a jerk. It's in the Trifecta. Don't harass others with profanity such as "pi##ing ne off", use "ticking me off" instead. It's the writers' faults that people like me misunderstand and misinterpret policies. If you want a policy you make to be understood and interpreted the way you want it to be understood and interpreted, at least clarify the policy and make it clear what to do so no one thinks that whoever says they're editing in the name of your new policy is disruptive.
Because 'follow consensus' is a rule, and consensus wants me to stop NPOVing articles, which is a way I try to improve articles, I'll just ignore that rule. Because WP:IAR says; If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Also NPOV and no firm rules are two of the five pillars.
Also you are criticizing me and my editing, and @John from Idegon: saying I shouldn't lecture experienced editors (WP:Do not bite the newcomers), and some editors saying that I'm "incompetent" or that I "don't belong on Wikipedia", which may constitute personal attacks against me. Don't bite the newcomers, don't be a jerk and be civil and polite.
Hopefully I didn't make this too long as TL;DR unblock requests usually get denied. I predict the odds are against me in this case. If you're going to deny this request, at least give me a clear and precise list of reasons and explanations (and excuses) for me to stay blocked.
I do wonder how my disruption compares to other blocked editors' disruption so I can learn how to avoid leaning over to the disruptive side, or some NPOV pyramid that helps me figure out which examples of NPOVizing improves Wikipedia and what NPOVizing disrupts and messes up (it can't break) Wikipedia. Mistakes are allowed, I may disrupt alot sometimes out in my potential mistakes or misunderstanding on NPOV policies but I can't break Wikipedia.
I think that it's not right to have Napoleon referred to as "one of the greatest commanders in history", so I think it should be in a quote and attributed to a source holding such opinion.
And the gap theory thing that I changed the first/second person pronouns and instructional tones in that got reverted because such stuff was in the sources, but if you're going to write a whole thing compiled exactly from sources that's really long, that's called plagiarism, even though you copied from sources, it was not attributed to the sources properly. Or that's what I think.
If you think that I'm misunderstanding NPOV policy; here's my interpretation:

Don't write Genocide is an evil action, you may write Genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil, but don't use weasel words in Genocide has been described by many as the epitome of human evil.
Don't use editorializations such as most notably or note that or interestingly or it should be noted or actually in articles.
Don't write that Hitler is one of the worst leaders in history without attributing that a cited source said so.
Don't write things such as This award-winning best-selling book is considered by many to be the greatest book of all time without listing any awards. Don't use puffery or weasel words.
Don't use weasel words such as science has proven or research shows or studies have shown or some people say or most scholars state or experts declare.
You may use those words in quotation, but some bracketing is unnecessary;
Okay: "He likes trains."
Okay: "[The I like trains kid] likes trains."
Okay: "He [The I like trains kid] likes trains."
Not necessary: "He [loves] trains."
Not necessary: "He likes [locomotives]."
Too awkward: "[The I like trains kid] [loves] [locomotives]."
Don't write that anything is surprising, unexpected, ironic, coincidental, etc. without clear attribution of such viewpoint.
Wikipedia should not assume that things are fortunate or unfortunate.
etc. (although some of these may be off topic from NPOV because it lists examples of policies I follow, but I believe in NPOV and verification and reliability)

I've been told that I should drop all my defenses and admit to being wrong, and that your side is right. But I don't agree with it. Such a statement against me would just be using personal bias to justify this block, which would be unreasonable and just an excuse used to keep the tides turned against me. How do we know for sure I was all wrong and you were all right?

I may think you're wrong and I'm right, and you'll think vice versa. We have a tendency to be personally biased towards ourselves and against others. I may be wrong, but I can be right. You may be right, but you can be wrong.
I'm not attacking you, but using personally biased offenses, defenses and excuses against me isn't the purpose of the block. Blocks are to protect the Wiki from vandals, trolls and wiki-anarchists, not from stupid people trying to help the encyclopedia who could've used what they learned to edit better. Now it's too late since I'm indef-blocked for persistent disruption.

I'm not going to do a clichéd beg such as "Please unblock me! I promise I'll never disrupt again!" or any of that stuff.

I don't think I'd be able to stop repeating my disruptive mistakes, but when I learn from mistakes and put the advice into practice, it just makes my disruption worse. What's going on? This is so confusing... this makes me wonder why there isn't a tutorial on how to avoid being a disruptive editor...

I acknowledge that I shouldn't be using Wikipedia to make points, or turning my talk page into a time sink, but your criticism gains bad response and then criticism and it goes on and on and it adds up until maximum angry and me blocked. :(

I don't know what else to say.

I think I may be TL;DR and I predict a >50% chance that my request will get denied, although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I still think that chances of getting unblocked from indefinite talk page account creation block on both English Wikipedias is very unlikely.

--Turkeybutt JC (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC) @Jimbo Wales:@Auntof6:@Huon:@Floquenbeam:@Bbb23:}}[reply]

Stop pinging me. I am not willing to unblock you on Simple, especially when you say things like "I don't think I'd be able to stop repeating my disruptive mistakes". I tried to explain the problems with your edits, but apparently you didn't understand, and another admin eventually blocked you.

Simple English Wikipedia has procedures for requesting unblock: you either request it on your talk page there or you email the admins mailing list. Contacting individual admins is not part of the procedure. I know you are blocked from editing your user page, so you will need to use the other option. You do not have to use the email function: you can send email directly to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you say I don't have to use the email function and then suggest I use another email function. I'm indefinitely blocked from both Wikipedias; I'm IP / IP range blocked, I've been blocked from emailing admins (although I never use email), I can't use my talk pages. They blocked me for persistent disruption. Floquenbeam and Chenzw have given me the urge to call them unreasonable, inhumane jerks, but then again I should keep my attack mouth shut and discuss my block with people who are admins on the English Wikipedias.

Because all I did was simply disrupt a lot. I don't understand why Jimbo thought Wikipedia needed protection from all potential disruptors, vandals or trolls, I wonder why Jimbo thought that it is okay to block as a next resort. I believe that blocking should be used as a last resort, not a next resort. No one has ever used the user warning templates on my talk pages. :(

They also have harassed and attacked me by saying I was incompetent and that I didn't belong on Wikipedia (which is a common personal attack used to deter and demean users that the attacker hates) and told me to stop NPOVing articles. I was topic banned and blocked for violating a topic ban and then blocked again and then blocked from talk page twice after 'turning it into a time sink'. --Turkeybutt JC (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also I refuse to promise not to disrupt again. I can promise not to intentionally disrupt, but I can't promise to never disrupt again for good, I'm not perfect, and neither is anyone else.

I am disruptive because consensus, the Wikipedia community and a bunch of Wikipedians say I'm disruptive. There is no verified or clarified evidence supporting the argument that I am disruptive, not to mention being the true epitome of disruptive editing, a title I never got to be referred to as because I never disrupted on purpose. --Turkeybutt JC (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And why do all people who may disrupt have to be blocked? Why can't blocking be a last resort? Why do people who never disrupt but has a chance of disruption get blocked too? Anyone can disrupt, so isn't it logical that everyone be prevented from editing because of the rare chance that they may disrupt Wikipedia eventually? Then Wikipedia couldn't be edited! Why should I have to make a promise that is so easy to break?!

I'm pretty sure that the admins who blocked me have disrupted at least as much as I did, right? Nobody is perfect. We shouldn't tell our fellow editors that they are incompetent for Wikipedia just because of some dumb things they do. It would be considered a personal attack to tell them that they don't belong on Wikipedia. --Turkeybutt JC (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Hi. We've been incredibly lenient here, but any further edits regarding your en and simple blocks will result in a block on Meta as well. This project has a specific goal other than being a platform for your specific grievances. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]