User talk:Thisisashan

May 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Antifeminism for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Okay, what you have done is vandalism. I spoke specifically given solid facts and reasoning. You edited that page in an attempt to hide information, which is intellectually dishonest. It was not being used as a discussion, it was a statement to the fact that the Anti-feminist wiki entry should be written by the affirmative, primary, source. Per wikipedia rules, you cannot as a feminist, claim ownership to the anti-feminist wikipedia entry. Likewise, censorship of material is against guidelines. Not assuming good faith, against guidelines. Not adhering to a neutral point of view? against guidelines. Further Malicious editing will be reported.Thisisashan (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You made personal attacks against users (policy) and ranted about stuff other than the article content (also against policy). AGF is not a suicide pact. NPOV is about content of articles, not personal views. You're an SPA. Continue to do this, and you'll likely be blocked from Wikipedia. As for the article, wikipedia is not a platform for specific groups to promote their cause; we describe topics based on secondary, reliable sources. For this topic, the majority of those are feminist academic ones. The concept of anti-feminism is largely a feminist one in the first place. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:I have made no personal attacks against any users. The only thing I 'ranted' about was in complete topicality, which is anti-feminism. What you are doing now is harassing me, reliable sources for anti-feminism, are anti-feminists. You are speaking to one. Feminists are the con, the negative, when speaking in affirmation to anti-feminism. If you are not familiar with academia or debate, this means that the primary source is absolutely anti-feminism, and not feminism.Thisisashan (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Antifeminism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion beat me to the 3RR warning. I'll add that I'm giving you a "final warning" regarding you disruptive behavior as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Obvious collusion in order to evade the dispute mechanics of Wikipedia. You have been reported for harassment. I have finals to grade, and little time to deal with a vigilant feminist that is policing antifeminism, knowingly going against Wikipedia guidelines. People like you are the reason why Wikipedia is still a joke in academia. The easily verifiable information given in the talk section go against the victim narrative that you paid thousands of dollars to get a degree in, and it is sad. I have nothing but pity for someone like you.Thisisashan (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reported where exactly? Most places you are required to inform the person... Our grades were due Tuesday, so I'm done grading. Have fun. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you even consider the possibility that WP:No original research (a foundational project policy) is why we don't care about your "easily verifiable information"...? And you keep saying that this and that behavior is against Wikipedia guidelines, without really citing those guidelines and while going against other site policies. That goes a bit beyond crying wolf. Also, as has been said before WP:Assume good faith. It's not a shield for you to hypocritically hide behind while accusing everyone of being part of the big feminist conspiracy. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:A teacher? That is disturbing. Please no longer contact me, as it is considered harassment.Thisisashan (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Did you even consider that it isn't original research? You do understand that CENSUS is not RESEARCH, do you not? And if you could read you could scroll up you would see the exact policies being cited. What goes beyond crying wolf, is a group of feminists that cannot read and who would commit to gang against an antifeminist for attempting to improve an article under discussion. The only hypocrites here are the feminist who are attempting ownership, failing to adhere to a neutral point of view, censoring materials and more than anything failing to assume good faith. You sir, are the hypocrite. And please, do point out where I claimed there was a conspiracy? Exactly. Please refrain from contacting me as any further contact will be considered harassment.Thisisashan (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am required to notify you of this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: This is your second formal warning, please desist harassment of me and my character.

Thisiashan, please strike out your last comment. It violates our policy WP:No legal threats. You are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, after reviewing WP:No legal threats, it is only applicable if I state I will take legal action. I am expressing that I am being harassed, and am within my legal rights to do so. I did not waive my rights, and will not. What I will do is, I will amend the threat of action, in accordance to the guidelines. What I will not do, is pretend that Wikipedia has the right to supersede my rights. Given that Wikipedia also frowns on harassment, I would expect that it would not be against the rules to point harassment out. Thanks. If this was me claiming harassment for simply someone editing my contributions, it would be different. I am being stalked on Wikipedia and lied about.Thisisashan (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)