User talk:Prudish

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Section

See Genocides in history. That fulfills what you want, pretty much. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou I will look to that and build upon it Prudish (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After you have served your block i hope. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Block?? If anyone should be blocked it should be you! Having read your talkpage that says it all really. I've never been accused of being a member of an extremist organisation such as the BNP? 'support a ban on the burka' <--- I'm glad that the only time such rightwing extreme views can be aired is on the internet. If I am to be blocked for anything it would be a matter of days. I am here to stay, that is something your going to have to live with.Prudish (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're walking the edge, dude. I'd be very silent about any of this or else you might end up getting an entry in your block-log before you even had a chance to start here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Being accused of being a member of an extremist organisation is very different to being a member of such an organisation, most of whos policies i oppose. As for a burka ban, plenty of muslim countries seem to support some form of ban on wearing the burka, along with France and Belgium hardly the most extremist nations in the world.

People do not need to accuse you of anything, because we have seen very clearly some of your disgusting racism. That is why you have been blocked. I hope you do intend to serve your block on this account and continue to use it for all your contributions to wikipedia, that would make life much easier thanks :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That maybe so, but where there is fire there is smoke. You would have to define what you mean by plenty as I can only count two. I believe it is errornous of of you to quibble that there exists plenty of such nations. The two that come to mind are muslim by constitution anyway. Why should I serve a block when I have said nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prudish (talk • contribs)

So you are not 90.192.3.72? Your previous IP before registering this account was pretty similar 90.192.3.47. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

??, & what do you mean by plenty. You have not clarified that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prudish (talk • contribs)

You have not clarified if you are the two IPs i have just mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's him.

Prudish; you could use your one week block time well, by reading the guidelines to editing on Wikipedia. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Manual of Style

I think the most important parts for you to read are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

As it's painfully obvious that you are evading a previous valid block, I have blocked you for one week for evasion by WP:SOCKing. Wikipedia is no place for "personal beefs" against any groups. Based on my own family of origin, you will not be able to label me as a target of your dislike, but much of your editing is original research and SOAPboxing. If you would like to read about the neutral point of view while you're off on your week break, and then start on the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, you may return as a more productive editor. If you try to create a new account, or try to edit using an IP during this week, you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Read WP:GAB very carefully if you think this block is incorrect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not evading a previous valid block. I have not been blocked and have only posted today after discussions were raised on other forums

Decline reason:

Less then 15 minutes after your account was created, you ended up on a the talk page of the British empire making this edit which is pretty much an exact copy of this edit which was made by an IP editor before he was eventually blocked. Whether or not these people are you doesn't matter, as this is would still be a case of meatpuppetry.

Besides, based upon your comments i would point out that Wikipedia is not a website where one can settle his indifferences with a certain subject. Wikipedia's goal is to create a neutral and unbiased encyclopedia. In other words, spend this week reading the links Bwilkins posted above, and rethink if you wish to create an encyclopedia, or if you merely wish to push your own point of view. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:20, 8 August 2010 (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.

Could you please provide us a link to the forum? It may help prove to the admins you are not the editor that was blocked originally. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think your interested in helping me prove anything as you're the one who was pressing for the ban of me knowing that I had not commited any offense, except to use the forum in some way. I suggest you e-mail D.Adebayo from the voice, from your real e-mail address.

+

Just to let people know another brand new user posting on the same article talk page today has mentioned the same fact that this matter was being discuss on some black nationalist forum. User:Supercede here [1]. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

- I think this would now be the fourth black british man to be banned with regard to this from what I have read. I am not interested in serving a ban or creating a new username. There are other ways of dealing with this matter. On that note, I will not speak for others who may wish to pursue this matter with wikipedia.Prudish (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that 90.192.3.4 90.192.3.46 90.192.3.89 are all me as well?? I think not. I live on the border of Brixton and although I am not privy to how these numbers work, I am not the same as the 3 other men previously banned before. Please note that the three numbers I gave are arbitary numbers I chose.

If neither of them are you, you should provide us with the forum where this matters is being discussed to help prove that there are several people involved. An IP (90.192.3.47) posted a comment on the talk page [2], it got reverted because it was by someone clearly blocked. Half an hour later, you posted an identical comment just with a section heading [3].

If this whole operation is being coordinated from a black nationalist forum, then please give us the link which could help get you unblocked if you are not those IPs. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I performed exactly as I intended; by first removing the appropriate words from the history section of that page before your reversion. Then subsequently pasting it in an appropriate section as you say. You must understand that it is now common knowledge that a gentleman made a suggestion on the British Empire's content discussion page about genocide. This was subsequently removed. All I did was to re-iterate that same line. That does not mean I am the same person. I am definately not bothered about a ban and that should prove more informative to you with respect to my identity. I do not ask you which part of stormfront.com you spend your time posting in, now do I? If you showed you were reasonable - then perhaps I would show you the forum. Though your actions speak differently since you were the main proponent of my ban and using the forums in bold. I have not acknowledged to you that it is a black nationalist forum. So it is incorrect to say that. But your intention was to protect your treasured British Empire documents on the web. I think that has failed as there is now talk of changes. This is reminescent of the civil rights days and of oldham. More for us, less for you.Prudish (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also 'whole operation' proves my point adequately. You are just trying to use anything I write for your own ill purposes. I think you know my view and I know yours. The difference is I am not in offensive mode. It is people like yourself who bring shame to this country. With a username like britishwatch := I think I know what you're trying to do.Prudish (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply want to know the forum that the blocked IP discussed this matter at that led you and another new editor to arrive on the same article today. It would be helpful for you to prove several editors are involved, the admins are less likely to think you are simply evading a block. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There are other ways of dealing with this matter. - No, there isn't. You are blocked for a week. If you want to help improve Wikipedia, spend that week by reading the links you have been given. Otherwise you will not be able to help improve. The only others way you have of dealing with this issue is to never return to Wikipedia again, or return, but if you refuse to follow the rules here, you are then going to end up being permanently banned petty quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)