User talk:Pride2bme

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Antioch International Movement of Churches, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

I recommend that you delete your personal attacks (see WP:PA) from the Antioch talk page and move your commentary on content to the bottom of the page. Talk pages go in chronological order from top to bottom. You can click "start a new topic" at the top of the page to get it to slot into the correct spot. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not personally attacked any editor. If I have new topics I will add them to the bottom. Pride2bme (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FOC, please focus on content on talk pages, not contributor behavior, even if you believe a contributor is misbehaving. I myself try to never comment on editor behavior on talk pages at all. If you have a problem with the conduct of an editor, you can talk to administrators about it on the appropriate boards. I myself do not comment on editor behavior on talk pages, nor do I respond to negative commentary on my behavior. That's not what talk pages are for. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not personally attacked any editor, WP:OWN is not about me. This is a different topic from your WP:OWN concern. I read if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. If you don't believe this to be an issue you should submit yourself to the admins yourself. Pride2bme (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antioch International Movement of Churches. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. C F A 💬 04:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I am not making unconstructive edits. My most recent edits were properly sourced, using words from sources, and clarified content on what the controversy was. I believe my edits improved the section. Please elaborate in the talk section what edits you disagreed with or viewed as vandalism. Describe the degree type of vandalism you see present. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia.Pride2bme (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"false-positive" as per CFA Pride2bme (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Jengaboot per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jengaboot. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:31, 12 July 2024 (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).

Pride2bme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have absolutely nothing to do with these previous editors. My behavior and words are completely independent and original. I understand in my inexperience, I have made some strong contributions which have of late, garnered a mixed reception. However, overall it sounded to be positive. I believe my concerns are valid and raised it openly. I definitely was not evading anything. Although I am deeply discouraged by this turn of events, even my detractor had voiced a note of potential. The contributions I have made have all been in good faith. This is my only account, so I request to be unblocked. Thank you. Pride2bme (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jengaboot. It's also utterly bizarre that you would say "I have made some strong contributions which have of late, garnered a mixed reception" (emphasis mine). Your account has existed just over a month, meaning your use of the term "of late" is all but admitting to sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (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.

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).

Pride2bme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I seem to have been misunderstood. I did not make an admission. The mixed reception refers to the combination of positive feedback and supposed "personal attack" accusations which only came to my attention "of late" because nobody responded directly about that until now. There isn't an admission in that wording at all. It's impossible for me to deconstruct other people's subjective speculations, sometimes people see things and make connections that just aren't there; I find yamla's interpretation bizarre as well. I did not manufacture my situation. My initial post was a response to reading the talk section on the denial of conversion therapy but it appears that subject was "settled" between those two editors two months prior to my initial posting. Any editor who refuses to acknowledge the fact that "sexual orientation change" is the same as "conversion therapy" is either mentally deficient or intentionally biased. There should be no sheltering on Wikipedia for bigoted editors. I primarily focused on the homosexuality and marriage section, which is a high visibility controversial topic due to involvement with Chip and Joanna Gaines, conversion therapy. I can't speak for the actions of others but I'm not surprised other editors worked on that. This is just a guess, but sources and editors will echo content. I also contributed on Antioch's Impact on the local community, Antioch's Entrepreneurial Evangelism, spelling issues, doesn't seem like these were mentioned by other editors in the sock puppet investigation. I didn't even know that I was under suspicion, apparently I overlooked it. Another admin there said I may be innocent. Pride2bme (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Any editor who refuses to acknowledge the fact that "sexual orientation change" is the same as "conversion therapy" is either mentally deficient or intentionally biased". That's not how we communicate with each other on a collaborative project. The fact that all of your edits have been made via open proxies is also concerning. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 29 August 2024 (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.