User talk:GingerBreadHarlot

I am a fiery redhead. My user name was Pussy Pimples, but politically correct Wikipedia activists put that user name into dispute. I explained that pussy meant oozing, not vagina, but it was already too late as I had resurrected as Ginger Bread Harlot. Welcome to my Talk page, Happy New Year, January 2015. Let's make it a great year and a fresh start. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Your recent edit to Holocaust denial appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to my addition of Carlos Whitlock Porter to the list of Holocaust Deniers? C.W. Porter has written a number of high profile pseudo-scholarly and pseudo-historical works about the Holocaust being a fabrication of wartime propaganda. Please take a look at his web site http://www.cwporter.com/buy.htm "Made in Russia" which lists a number of his works translated to multiple languages. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Holocaust, you may be blocked from editing. Editing another user's comments so as to change the meaning of what they said is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. If you have something to say, make another comment of your own, rather than being disruptive Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not intentional, that was accidental. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Kevin B. MacDonald, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, grow a spine. The long arc of this century indicates Wikipedia is both, at the same-time, a living organism and species of knowledge evolving into future time. Change is the only constant. Labeling people or articles/books people wrote with infantilized emotionally charged words like "anti-Semitism" and "Neo-Nazi", or *insert your shaming ad hominem label here* to suppress individuals or groups doesn't work anymore to chill dissent in the real world and all it does is instigate a loaded name calling contest that leads no where. When someone uses these emotionally laden words it usually means that someone or some group no longer has any good arguments (especially when the person is not advocating national socialism or hitler). The word "anti-Semitism", "anti-Semite" and Neo-Nazi are now recognized as keywords used to stifle dissent, differing opinions and to call "the other" a personal attack in the ugly game of fighting for who controls history. Using racial epithets, emotionally charged words, ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, infantilized red-herring is the equivalent of calling something "neo-Nazi", "anti-Semite" or smearing something with the racial epithet "anti-Semitism" because it criticizes something related to Jewish subjects. Basically anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi have become anti-Gentile racial epithets. Stop the anti-Gentile behavior. Stop the Anti-Gentilism. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal and edits of another users comments[edit]

Please don't edit my comments as you did on Bishonen's talk page. Thank you. Cassianto ^Talk 18:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I did that, I'm new to relatively Wikipedia. I refreshed the page, and posted. Apologies if I did that by accident.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see you have been blocked. Please learn by your mistakes and embrace the advice of others who have been around here a lot longer. Cassianto ^Talk 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen about Tom Northshoreman[edit]

Bishonen, Do not delete posts on my talk page without my permission, or without leaving a note of explanation on it. Bishonen, I posted a question about needing help to report Tom Northshoreman because of his disruptive behavior of deleting, editing or altering people's posts on the Leo Frank talk page. I didn't ask someone to delete my post, I asked for someone's help in telling me what to do for reporting it (You deleted the whole post Bishonen). I still don't know how to put links to the examples of where Tom Northshoreman did the edits and deletions. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and need explanation about how to put those link thingies in. Stop deleting my personal talk page posts. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen on Talk page deleting[edit]

Quote from Thomas.W (What the W stands for?):

Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen read Thomas. W quote, do not delete posts on my talk page about relevant issues concerning improvement of the encyclopedia. I was bringing up an issue with Tom Northshoreman about his disruptive editing on the Leo Frank talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to back your claims on WP:AN[edit]

Hi, GingerBreadHarlot. I've looked at your AN thread here, and since you haven't replied to the several people who have commented there, it occurs to me that you might not realize that you should be following it. Basically, you need to provide evidence of the behavior that you're accusing Northshoreman of, in the form of diffs. I've looked briefly through the last month's worth of edits or so, and I don't see anything like what you're saying is happening. The burden of proof is on you, so you need to provide diffs in the AN thread if you want anything to happen. This page should help you if you're not sure how to make a diff. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being here exclusively to promote an agenda, not to contribute to the encyclopedia. That agenda is sufficiently illustrated by comments like: "This entire article is Antigentile smears, defamation and slanders against Kevin B. MacDonald from activist groups and individuals that make a living off the anti-Semitism canard" [1], where by "activist groups and individuals" making a living off the "anti-Semitism canard" you refer to sources such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. Also, "The word "anti-Semitism", "anti-Semite" and Neo-Nazi are now recognized as keywords used to stifle dissent, differing opinions and to call "the other" a personal attack in the ugly game of fighting for who controls history"[2] and "Stop the anti-Gentile behavior. Stop the Anti-Gentilism"[3] (very recent, 8 July 2015; for context, see [4] and [5]). I'm not blocking you for expressing these opinions on Wikipedia talkpages, let alone for holding them, but for the skewed editing by which you have promoted them. That has included wikilawyering to remove reliable sources,[6] removing well-sourced content on Kevin B. MacDonald,[7][8][9][10] (the last several times), adding your own opinion into articles,[11] and insulting your opponents, as right above on this page, "Doug Weller, grow a spine". If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 8 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

BLP violations. Personal attacks are being made against Kevin MacDonald saying he is advocating neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism and so forth. I have a right to call a BLP violation against a living person. Wikipedia is an evolving organism. I pointed out to Doug Weller, that the article is making personal attacks against Kevin MacDonald. I have a right to say such things. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (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.

Note:: If another admin chooses to accept a future unblock appeal, I'd strongly recommend that GingerBreadHarlot be placed under discretionary sanction and banned from BLP-related articles/areas, since they are using such pages as a soapbox for their beliefs. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact the Race and intelligence case may be more pertinent, but in either case it is clear that the editor cannot edit constructively in this area. Abecedare (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You REALLY need to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks if you wish to get unblocked. If you don't see how your conduct was disruptive and pledge to be more collaborative with other editors (rather than turning a talk page into a battleground), you will not be unblocked. I really recommend reading the guide, it will explain what is expected from you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]