User talk:Moneyspender

Welcome!

Hello, Moneyspender, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Americans living in Saudi Arabia, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Americans living in Saudi Arabia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Americans living in Saudi Arabia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Hi as mentioned when I contested the article being erased, I am slowly adding content so please be patient with me. But I would appreciate help formatting it properly. Any little bit of assistance will be appreciated.21:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Moneyspender (talk)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LGBT rights in Antarctica

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on LGBT rights in Antarctica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Daiyusha (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LGBT rights in Antarctica

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on LGBT rights in Antarctica, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Daiyusha (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Daiyusha (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Singapore

Hi User:moneyspender. The edit summary for your edit here was: "removed unsourced claims and added that lesbians can be charged under modesty laws"? But you seem to have removed material that was fully sourced to this publication. And I did't see anything about lesbians being charged under modesty laws. I also think your edit here may have been based on a misunderstanding. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. also, at LGBT in the Middle East you seem to be arguing that The Atlantic is not a reliable source? Hello, first off my username is moneyspender. Secondly, that source does not back your claim that female same sex activity is legal. I read it. Thirdly, even if it was which I don't think it is, modesty laws could be used to charge lesbians with a crime so therefore it could be illegal under a technicality. There is no misunderstanding. Thank you though for the concern. Moneyspender (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the spelling error. I have corrected your username. The source I quoted says: "Wong said the public prosecutor did not pursue cases between consenting adults and in private places as it was not in the public interest." But your edit removed that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. See wp:1source about that article if it can't be verified with more than one article it doesn't belong unless other sources can be added. Thanks again. Moneyspender (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that www.gaystarnews.com is not WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I don't think it's reliable plus wp:bias for that too.Moneyspender (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to ask about that at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Then we'd all know for sure? It has its own article at Gay Star News, which raises no concerns about reliability at all. It obviously has an area of advocacy, but one might interpret that as a "specialist perspective" not just "bias." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would fall under wp:SPSMoneyspender (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide your evidence for that appraisal, or a link to consensus for this amongst editors, or a record of a decision at the appropriate noticeboard(s)? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow so every reliable source is unreliable?? U said u think its unreliable really!!! Wow!!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates

Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you give adampridetn that message. I was just reverting his vandalism. His edits are a typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Moneyspender (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdamPrideTN has edited there only once in the last 24 hours. If you think that editor is a vandal, you need to report it at WP:AIV. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinevans123 Dude, wtf!!! Again? Will u just chillax please?

(Personal attack removed) because u are somehow convinced that just bcos uae or qatar apply sgaria law this means excution for gays

We established and said that unlike iran saudi Mauretania uae qatar and some others although they have death penalty for gays in the books not spcefic towards them but just cause of sharia law. ILGA yearly review is the best plus it is clear and i'm speaking as an ex muslim gay Arab who know and able to read Arabic living in a country where being a crime, i assure both countries are a secret heaven for gays compared to others, the govs doesnt monitor the beds or phones or secret meetings just public or tgose advocating or politivising issues or "parties" And also that the uae and qatar never excuted anyone for being gay whether muslim or not whether national or a foreigner Some incidents occur yes but none and i say again none Surprise me and i dare you to provide me a source that stated there have been an excution in uae or qatar just cos one is gay i dare u Plus the edit shows that yes the death penalty is possible I dream that these laws will change and be abolished but unfortunately its not anytime soon

Also i added that some face deportation if they are foreigners u reverted that too? Wtf? Will a country deport its nationals or foreigners?

Oh and all wiki pages use ilga so? Hope its clear? AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Moneyspender (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

first i have to say i didn't call u anynames or bad things and if u think i did then i'm so sorry Again there is no conflict the law of the UAE is the law and i'm an Arab so i can read Arabic. The ILGA doirce is not biased there have been no excutions because of homosexuality ever in Mauretania or UAE or Qatar This wikipedia needs to highlight to maintain neutral and to the point. Many other users agreed with me and i'm sure if i bring others into that discussion they would too. So again i'm so sorry if u were hurt in anyway that was not my intention and please try to stick to the facts and to bigtime reliable sources. Sorry again. Ok!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at LGBT rights in Russia, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like you're WP:AGF I was only editing to add it details I thought were important, I'm not trying to be disruptive. No need to be hostile. I'm here to just better wikipedia. Please see WP:DV. ThanksMoneyspender (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a template message delivered by the Huggle bot. No real excuse but reviewers may not know that the bot will deliver a higher level warning than appropriate due to some past reverted edits. This is not an AGF matter but simply a matter of how the bot works. I am striking the above message because although your edit made a reference that technically did not lead anywhere, I can now see what your intention was. You planned to refer to a section of an article, not just to include some random topic that a reader might have to research. (I had no problem with the rest of the edit, as long as it was sourced, which the link would have done. But my message did not indicate that because it was a template, not something that I wrote specifically for this instance.) Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking especially the section on Piped links where you can see how you could have linked the section to your reference to it. That would have shown it was not some random reference, possibly even outside Wikipedia, but was part of an article. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Robertsky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, LGBT rights in Singapore, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The cited articles in Penal Code are related to obscene songs and forced acts with intent of outrage of modesty. Both of which are not related to lesbianism. As for Miscellaneous Offenses Act, please narrow down to the relevant articles as it is a broad Act. As for the added penalties, these are not in the immediate source referenced. If you think these additions are warranted, please cite properly. robertsky (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LGBT rights in Singapore. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. robertsky (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping:Robertsky Yes modesty and solicitation laws do affect lesbianism in Singapore. Just like in Egypt where modesty laws force a de facto ban on homosexuality there even if lesbianism isn't applicable under Section 377 (which I'm still not convinced it isn't) then if the police wanted to find a reason to arrest them they could use both these type of laws to put them away under vaguely written laws about unacceptable public behaviors which can be penalized. Moneyspender (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that there maybe laws that can be applied on LGBT. However, in my view these are opinions as they are not backed by facts which shows that these laws as been applied on the community. Were there cases published that utilised these laws on the community? If so, cite them. I am not a legal professional, and I am assuming that you aren't as well (without an explicit otherwise from you) at the moment. We don't interpret the laws here. Wikipedia is not for original research content. I cannot emphasize any more, cite your sources. Consider this as the 3rd warning. robertsky (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Doug Weller talk 14:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories without context

Hi there, re: these changes, per WP:CATV, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." When you add a category like Suicide by jumping in India without first ensuring that there is sourced content about the subject committing suicide and doing it by jumping, it just isn't constructive and tends to look like disruptive editing, (which I know you were not engaging in) even if you are ultimately correct. It would be appreciated if you'd please keep this in mind moving forward. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Homosexual agenda, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC) bonadea Not homophobia I don't think the article supports that direct label but we can in in talk:homosexual agenda first and I think you should hear me out. Moneyspender (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Homosexual agenda. bonadea contributions talk 23:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

−== Blocked ==

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I no longer use that account. I'm sorry for using this account while 4chankek is banned. I will no longer use that account and if I can get permissions on that talkpage I will request an unban on that account so I can avoid breaking the rules while editing on this account. I am here to contribute constructively and add new, sourced, relevant info to pages and I plan to be on my best behavior and follow all the rules including the sockpuppet rules. No more accounts from me. I promise. Please unban me.

Decline reason:

We can do without the crap you were foisting on us. We have no need to unblock you to allow you to troll further. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2019 (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.

How can I show that I've changed if you won't give another chance? If I get unbanned I would be willing to work under unban conditions or limits if needed. Anything to get back a chance to edit with purpose again. I will not troll again and I want to prove myself.Moneyspender (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can. Your edits were outright racist and when they weren't racist, they frequently had substantial other problems, both with your other account and with this one, as recently as this week. My opinion is that Wikipedia is far, far better off without you. You are free to request another unblock request and try to convince a different administrator to give you a chance, though. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyspender Don't edit other people's comment even on your own talk page. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments robertsky (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]