User talk:Ray2556

Wikipedia is not a forum[edit]

Wikipedia is not a forum or newspaper comment section. You don't need to register your objection to everything and you certainly don't get to leave lengthy troll-like rants. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I am not registering my personal objections based on belief. I am registering that this page could be interpreted as being representative of the opinion of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia. That is why I am suggesting a disclaimer. Troll rants don't tend to be as polite as I have been... Ray2556 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a campaign, like all other wikiloves campaigns to encourage inclusion of underrepresented groups of people. Your argument is off base and I suggest you stop ranting about it since more than half of your edits are whining about this and it seems like you're not really here to contribute. Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Don't worry, I have plenty of articles lined up to do with the music scene in North Korea. I don't see why you object to a small disclaimer which will note that "Wiki Loves Pride" is not the official sentiment of the encyclopaedia. I do not hate gay people. Hell, you don't even know my sexuality. Ray2556 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to not interpret this as an admission of sockpuppetry, so don't bother arguing there.

29 of your 37 pre-block edits were complaining about us not being homophobes. 6 were pretty clearly you trying to find a way around Praxidicae pointing out that it's obvious that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, doing so in a way that's clearly an "Oh, yeah?" to responses to your arguments against Wikipedia loving LGBT people. That's 78% of your activity here. And more than half of your activity was before you did anything in any other topic. You are clearly not here to help but complain. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ray2556 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand it seems suspicious, but I will not involve myself with the issue of Wiki loves Pride, rather I shall focus on improvements to Wiki Project North Korea

Decline reason:

Oh, goodness no. No thanks, that project doesn't want your disruption either. Yamla (talk) 23:27, 9 July 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.

Ian.thomson There's a misunderstanding - I am not involved with the guy talking about homosexuality being a threat. I do not think it is a threat to America. By all means, please have a look at my ip and what not because I did not control that account. If you please, I would like to be unblocked so that I can contribute to WikiProject North Korea. If you so wish, you can maintain a block on homosexual related articles. I do not want to cause a spiral of arguments and that's why my last change was to remove my entire comment in the Wiki Loves Pride section myself. You should note I was not complaining about you not being homophobes however and that continues to be an entirely inaccurate characterisation as I was concerned with POV.

You're really bad at reading messages. I specifically said that I'm not going to interpret your message on my talk page as a confession to sockpuppetry. If you can't understand that or else feel the need to respond as if I had said that, then you lack the literacy necessary to contribute to any part of the project. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]