User talk:Brboyle

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brboyle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not aware of the 3RR and will not do it again. Though I have been a user for a while, I only fairly recently began engaging in extensive editing on Wikipedia. I understand why I was blocked and will be sure to not do it again. The topic on which I abused the 3RR is now being discussed with civility by me and others on the talk page of the article in question. Also, due to the fact that the incident occurred over a NPOV issue I believe it should be given some leniency. Brboyle (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our

discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution

.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a

content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

Brboyle, I don't think that you can really say that you are discussing the issue "with civility" at article talk when, just a short while ago, you told a different user (My very best wishes) that "Your reply here just shows you are not interested in NPOV." Do you think that constitutes civil discussion? Neutrality^talk 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now I can't have opinions? I didn't feel that his comments were really showing that he wanted to follow the NPOV and I thoroughly explained why i felt that way. I do feel that constitutes a civil discussion because having a civil discussion doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the majority opinion and you, an administrator on Wikipedia should understand that. But then again maybe you don't because going to someone's talk page and harassing them/giving them attitude about their Wikipedia-granted right to dispute a 24 hour block doesn't seem very civil, either. Brboyle (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinions; you're entitled to have a minority opinion; you're not entitled to use talk space to personalize disputes or call into question the motives of other editors. Neutrality^talk 18:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if he was offended by my comments because they were not intended to be offensive. I wasn't saying that in an attempt to personalize the dispute but rather in an attempt to offer my side of the story and show how I Was looking at it differently. Could you point me to Wikipedia policy that states what you said about "personalize disputes or call into question the motives of other editors"? It seems that you and others are doing the same thing to me does it not? You stalked my talk page to harass me about the reason I disputed my block and when I was making edits on the article in question I was accused of intentionally not following NPOV and a "blatant NPOV violation by an editor pushing his view that tear gas wasn't used "because the park police said so" which is completely misrepresenting my intentions and calling into question my motivations, something you are saying is against the rules. Also, regarding the talk page. How do you think that the article should deal with the Park Police's report about the protests? Based on the NPOV it has to be mentioned its just an issue of how much weight it should be given. How would you reword "according to Park Police, were throwing projectiles in the park. However, most all media outlets say they were demonstrating peacefully." in order to better reflect how you believe the NPOV should function. Also, why do we even need an adjective to describe the protesters in the lead? Adjectives like "peaceful" or the alternative "unruly" call into the question the motives of the protesters which is something discussed in the article as being up for debate. Why is it so important to everyone that the lead use an adjective to describe the protesters, especially one that is being disputed by a source. Does it really matter if the its a primary or secondary/majority or minority opinion. Shouldn't the lead try and be as impartial as possible and leave it up to the rest of the article to bring into question the weight regarding the sources. Brboyle (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no one was offended. But it does matter a lot if the demonstration was or was not peaceful. In fact, this changes everything. I am sure you understand this. Please also note this.My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You corrected the Obama photo on

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shut In (2022 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shut In (2022 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Platonk (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in

section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]