Hello, DesertInfo!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Find a task to help improve Wikipedia.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first — it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desert ambition! I just wanted to follow up from Discord about fraternities and sororities. I'm not sure what type of editors tend to hang out at WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, but it at least seems like an active project. My main suggestion for preventing IPs/new editors from getting away with deleting negative content is to make sure there's always a source (or, better, two) backing it up, since I'm pretty sure edits that remove references are more likely to trigger User:ClueBot NG or catch the attention of users monitoring for vandalism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are some existing pages like Racism in United States college fraternities and sororities that could definitely use a bunch of cleanup. I'd start first with the main Fraternities and sororities page, though, as that has a lot more views and will thus be a better use of editing efforts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Pretoria, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of renamed places in South Africa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queenstown and Maclear. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think you need to go one city at a time for name changes. For example, for Talk:Cala, Eastern Cape please start another RM showing examples of media using the name "Kala" as opposed to "Cala".VR _talk 00:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand where you're coming VR, from but there are going to be very few sources specifically talking about a town of 10,000 people almost entirely composed of black Africans. The best sources are going to be government reports on the name change and media reports that the name was changed. Both have already been dismissed so I do not know what sources should be submitted. Desertambition (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where were government and media reports dismissed? Can you give me links? VR _talk 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • VR

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Port_Elizabeth#Requested_move_30_September_2021

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:King_William%27s_Town#Requested_move_27_November_2021

• VR I know you're already thinking that it's not the article on Kala but the same users show up in almost every thread on renamed South African places. I understand that I can submit another move request for every city but the fact is I have no reason to believe this wouldn't devolve into the exact same arguments that have happened on every renamed South African city. Seems much more reasonable to have a discussion in order to understand the policies and guidelines behind these moves so that they can be applied across the board. I am not completely opposed to making it but I hope you'll understand that I would like the discussion to run a bit longer before I go through that. Very tedious, time consuming, and discouraging. Desertambition (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In this above links, who is arguing against the reliability of your sources? I see only Park3r, so I don't think reliability was an issue. In fact one person (BilledMammal) specifically said that reliability of sources shouldn't be considered.VR _talk 00:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• VR I don't fully understand your argument. Reliability should matter. The sources I provided are reliable. Both Park3r and BilledMammal are wrong. Park3r doesn't believe African sources are reliable and BilledMammal refuses to accept the sources because they aren't from outside of South Africa I believe. But his reasoning is a bit obtuse and hard to understand. If you can explain their reasoning I would greatly appreciate it. Both of these arguments are deeply flawed. South African and international media have reported on this. All reliable sources. The same argument would be brought up again in another RM just like they have for over a decade. Desertambition (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Desertambition! Your additions to User:Desertambition have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. An additional note: I've left the link to the article behind since I got the feeling that you want people to read the original article. While keeping the link on Wikipedia is allowed, I unfortunately have to remove the copied article text since it's not under a free license. Feel free to point others to the article in whichever way you see fit. Thank you. Chlod (say hi!) 02:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not ever edit my user page again. Desertambition (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertambition: can I kindly suggest you not say things like these. Chlod is right. When people give you feedback, please accept it.

I understand you're upset about wikipedia using apartheid names. I get it. Apartheid was such a sick and disgusting crime. Also shocking was how the rest of the world didn't do enough to help the oppressed people of South Africa. I'm with you on all that.

But, my friend, you have to be polite on wikipedia and follow the rules. Be patient, and sooner or later you will find people start to agree with what you're saying.VR _talk 03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Desert -- I apologize for editing your userpage. But in reference to your statement on neutrality there, I would like your opinion, please: Should Wikipedia be neutral when governments commit, condone or sanction atrocities? - JGabbard (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor JGabbard: What do you mean by that question? I believe if an atrocity has been committed that should be recorded. If that atrocity is condoned and is important enough, then those comments should be included as well. Does that answer your question? Desertambition (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desertambition,

Please revert your recent repeated moves to eNtokozweni (ngrams), Emgwenya (ngrams), Mbhongo (ngrams), Ncorha (ngrams), Khubusi River (ngrams), and eMkhondo (Google news eMkhondo and Piet Retief - ngrams is not suitable as Piet Retief is not primary).

Per WP:RMUM, move warring is disruptive, and if a bold move is contested you are required to open an RM about the move rather than reimplementing the move yourself. I understand you have strong feelings about this, but if once you have reverted and looked at the evidence I have provided you still feel that a move is required, the correct response is to open an RM, rather than engaging in disruptive behaviour.

I would note that you are also engaging in move warring at Ntabankulu, but on further review I find that Ntabankulu has become the common name, and so I won't request that you self-revert, but I do note it in the context of the broader behaviour (ngrams)

BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I will ask that you self-revert your bold moves to Mhlambanyatsi, Mpumalanga (Google news Mhlambanyatsi (with most results being about a location in Swaziland) and Buffelspruit), Mmaduma (Google news Greenside and Mmaduma), Dikeni (Google news Alice and Dikeni), James Calata, Eastern Cape (Google news Jamestown and James Calata), and Maletswai (ngrams).

While these are not repeated moves, I am starting to feel that these large numbers of bold moves, that are both clearly controversial and probably not aligned with policy based on the evidence I have found, are themselves amounting to disruptive behaviour, and so I would ask that you revert them and open RM's. I will hold off on doing so myself, as this issue has expanded past what can be managed simply by reverting bold moves. I also note that the titles you have chosen are not aligned with disambiguation policy for South African locations, and while I understand that you disagree with that policy, it is disruptive to ignore it in bold moves as you are doing. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your repeated claims that these moves are controversial, you have yet to provide any proof of that. I will not move the pages back and I encourage you to present your arguments, address my sources directly, and try again. You cannot keep citing ngrams after you have been told repeatedly they are not reliable. You also cite google search results, which is not a valid citation. There is no reason to entertain weaker sources when stronger sources exist. If there is overwhelming evidence the name has been rejected, then fine. However, that evidence doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Try using reliable sources next time. Desertambition (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams is considered reliable and appropriate evidence; see WP:RSPM which states use evidence (such as Google Ngrams ...). WP:RSPM also supports the use of appropriate search engine tests, as it states in the RM template If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results, emphasis mine. In general, I would also note that such tests tend to be more effective than providing sources directly, as the provide a more neutral method of choosing sources, rather than risk editors inadvertently choosing sources that support their position and overlooking those sources that oppose it.

I would also note that WP:RM#CM states that A move is potentially controversial if ... someone could reasonably disagree with the move. It is possible that you could argue that I - and the other editors who disagree with your moves when they are opened for RM's - are being unreasonable, but I don't believe that is the case.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how we can move forward from here, and so I see no choice but to write up a review at WP:ANI. I will provide you the appropriate notification when it is submitted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will make my views clear on the noticeboard. I have brought this issue up before. Desertambition (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Arkansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the Flag of Florida. I rolled back your changes because they didn't seem neutral. The Washington Post article didn't really add anything that wasn't covered already, but if you do find some more original sources feel free to add them. A few months ago pulled newspaper archives for when the flag was changed and there wasn't anything in there to tie the change to the Confederacy. That doesn't mean that wasn't the reason, but I haven't been able to find anything to say for sure. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your interest as well Nemov. I'm going to put the paragraph back because I provided three sources. The Washington Post article was not dead as you claimed in your edit summary. I'll add a note that it's not officially confederate but the evidence is quite strong and it is widely believed to be based on the confederate flag. I encourage you to read up on Lost Cause mythology and how many Southern states tried to downplay slavery and embrace confederate imagery. Desertambition (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed anything I asked and just reverted my change without any consensus to do so. That is not in good faith and your suggestion that I read up on the Lost Cause is presumptuous. The Washington Post "article links to a dead article." That's what I said. You didn't read what I wrote. The Post article doesn't go in depth and links to a dead article. That's what you've added. Now you've added a Denver Post summary that doesn't include any research. If you have some original research to add, please feel free. I would love to see it. As it stands you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm going to revert again and please this time find some consensus in talk. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The section of the Barbados page provides fully cited references showcasing a mixture of support for, and oppositon to, republicanism. Editing articles on Wikipedia to reflect your opinion is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bbnck This was highly inappropriate. You should not leave messages like this. It is not my opinion, it is the general consensus and people have brought this up to you before. It is not ok to threaten bans. Desertambition (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. There is only one other talk page where I have been compelled to publish this tag for the same reason I have been compelled to do so herein. It is normal practice on Wikipedia to warn persons using standardised Wikipedia tags. Please familiarize yourself by reading this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter I've been editing for years. I feel so defeated. I spent so many hours arguing this and wasn't taken seriously. I do need to take a break but this is seriously intense measures. I was not told I would be blocked for responding and no explanation was given. I engaged with good faith. Seriously upset about this. Feels extremely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can post an unblock request as explained in the template above.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Desert, please listen. I trust Ymblanter as he is an awesome editor and administrator, so please listen carefully to his words, both here and at the noticeboard. Being blocked is not the end of the world, so lean back and take a break. At this point I would suggest that you only answer questions when asked. And when you think you are ready, do use the Unblock template to request the ability to edit again. Again, please listen and learn, so you can come back and help us build and improve this encyclopedia. You are an avidly responsive editor who has shown an ability to learn the policies and guidelines so please don't lose heart, and I hope to see you back to editing soon! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend to follow this discussion for a while, I expect that most of the opinions will be given in a couple of days. It is not pleasant, I know, but at least it will give some reasonable picture of what (mostly) uninvolved users think and what they expect. Then, indeed, an unblock request should correspond to these expectations.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that. And we hope the New Year will bring excellent editing and happiness to us all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:

You didn't read my conversation with Nick-D. I am working on exactly what you are asking for. Why ask for something and then take away my ability to post it? I am working on it right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#Working_on_Comprehensive_Review_of_Suspected_South_African_White_Nationalists/Sympathizers

How is it fair to block me and then ignore my questions? Desertambition (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing my response as I got blocked so that's why you didn't get a response right away. DeCausa Jeppiz

I should have put Afrikaner white nationalist but my main point was illustrating the messaging of white nationalists in South Africa. I have never implied that all Afrikaners are racist because of course they aren't. What I am saying is that there is a significant white nationalist movement in South Africa at the moment that frames the history of South Africa as Afrikaners fighting for their rights against the incompetent/violent South African government/population. That is supported in the news reports I linked. Did you have a chance to watch any of those videos? Desertambition (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice on raising issues of bias:

• Administrators have no power over content, only to implement some technical actions and assess the outcome of discussions, where all volunteers should be treated equally and judged only on the strength of their argument.
• The more heated and emotional your comments, the less seriously you will be taken, rightly or wrongly.
• To contest article content as biased, it is not enough to say "this is a topic of interest to white nationalism" (for instance, our article on Holocaust denial is not an endorsement of Holocaust denial—it's the furthest thing from it) and it is not enough to say "it is biased". You need to give specific suggestions of what changes should be made and why, with reference to reliable sources. For instance, you might say: "the article makes no mention of this common criticism of Orania, found in Peer-Reviewed Journal Monthly and Newspaper of Record Daily". Or you might say: "the source cited here is a think-tank with political biases, but the article text presents the information as correct rather than attributing it to the think-tank".
• If you want to make the claim that white nationalists control the content of Wikipedia articles, don't. It's too broad and vague. Instead, as the edit history of all Wikipedia articles is public, you can find exactly who wrote what, see whether all of their edits have been biased or factually incorrect, and if so you can raise that specific allegation at a content forum (like WP:ANI, similar to the venue WP:AN that you posted at). Better yet is to try to discuss with the editor specifically what you see as a problem with their edits, and if they respond well you might find an amicable resolution, and if they don't then that's more evidence for your case.

— Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you (Desertambition) are able to get back to editing in a more positive way than before. I think you have a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, and Bilorv gives some great tips on how to challenge systemic bias in a constructive way. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing and I now have a much stronger grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. I apologize for my lack of patience and calm. These guidelines were not 100% clear to me beforehand. I hope it is at least partially understandable why I was so confused. It often felt like I was being given conflicting guidance. However, that does not excuse my immaturity and lack of patience. I am working on a much more comprehensive review related to the problems I laid out previously. My arguments are often overly emotional and I recognize that. I intend to further develop a more neutral writing style.

I explicitly have not called users neo-nazis because I wanted to avoid being banned for calling users neo-nazis without cited edits. So I believed it to be reasonable to post my concerns on the Administrator's Noticeboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1064434711

"We on Wikipedia do [not] take this accusations lightly. This is not the first time you make them. But this is definitely the last time, because if this is not I will block you account next time you accuse anyone on Wikipedia in [Neo-Nazi] propaganda. Refusing to move the article on Port-Elisabeth has nothing to do with Nazism, and if you are not capable of understanding this you should not be editing Wikipedia." - Ymblanter

This seems unnecessarily mean and rude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1064446141&oldid=1064443841

"How is advocating for a white ethnostate not nazi stuff? Didn't say that just refusing to move Port Elizabeth is Nazism and it's disingenuous to imply I did." - desertambition

That's a question but I am not going around accusing users of being neo-nazis nor did I create a new thread. I do not see why this sentence is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am also not an anti-white/Afrikaner racist like some admins were suggesting in the linked thread. I find those accusations completely absurd and inappropriate. Also want to note that Orania, Northern Cape, an article some admins said was completely neutral and unbiased received significant revisions following my post.

I continued to inform Ymblanter that I was working on a more comprehensive list of users with cited edits (which had been specifically requested by both Ymblanter and Nick-D, among others) and had told this to Nick-D [[1]].

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Desertambition&diff=1064451078&oldid=1064450719

Ymblanter either ignored my question or did not see it. I pinged his user to make sure the post was seen.

I stand by the statement that my concerns were not taken seriously but I will work to raise my concerns in a more convincing and polite manner in the future.

I have never intended to cause harmful disruption and I do take issue with the accusation that I am WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I attended the [South Africa meetup] and had a very reasonable and polite discussion on the topic of South African place names. I hope to attend the meeting at the end of the month as well. I hope it is clear that I am here to build an encyclopedia.

This post is intended to serve as a genuine apology and explanation for why this won't happen again. I fully understand that it was my disruptive editing style that largely contributed to my ban. I maintain that I have not baselessly accused users of being neo-nazis but that my concerns about WP:BIAS and WP:NONAZIS can be handled much more maturely, politely, and calmly. Desertambition (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing and I now have a much stronger grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. I apologize for my lack of patience and calm. These guidelines were not 100% clear to me beforehand. I hope it is at least partially understandable why I was so confused. It often felt like I was being given conflicting guidance. However, that does not excuse my immaturity and lack of patience. I am working on a much more comprehensive review related to the problems I laid out previously. My arguments are often overly emotional and I recognize that. I intend to further develop a more neutral writing style. I explicitly have not called users neo-nazis because I wanted to avoid being banned for calling users neo-nazis without cited edits. So I believed it to be reasonable to post my concerns on the Administrator's Noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1064434711 "We on Wikipedia do [not] take this accusations lightly. This is not the first time you make them. But this is definitely the last time, because if this is not I will block you account next time you accuse anyone on Wikipedia in [Neo-Nazi] propaganda. Refusing to move the article on Port-Elisabeth has nothing to do with Nazism, and if you are not capable of understanding this you should not be editing Wikipedia." - [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] This seems unnecessarily mean and rude. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1064446141&oldid=1064443841 "How is advocating for a white ethnostate not nazi stuff? Didn't say that just refusing to move Port Elizabeth is Nazism and it's disingenuous to imply I did." - [[User:desertambition|desertambition]] That's a question but I am not going around accusing users of being neo-nazis nor did I create a new thread. I do not see why this sentence is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am also not an anti-white/Afrikaner racist like some admins were suggesting in the linked thread. I find those accusations completely absurd and inappropriate. Also want to note that [[Orania, Northern Cape]], an article some admins said was completely neutral and unbiased received significant revisions following my post. I continued to inform [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] that I was working on a more comprehensive list of users with cited edits (which had been specifically requested by both [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] and [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], among others) and had told this to [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#Working_on_Comprehensive_Review_of_Suspected_South_African_White_Nationalists/Sympathizers|here]]. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Desertambition&diff=1064451078&oldid=1064450719 [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] either ignored my question or did not see it. I pinged his user to make sure the post was seen. I stand by the statement that my concerns were not taken seriously but I will work to raise my concerns in a more convincing and polite manner in the future. I have never intended to cause harmful disruption and I do take issue with the accusation that I am [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia. I attended the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/South_Africa/South_Africa_13|Wikipedia South Africa meetup]] and had a very reasonable and polite discussion on the topic of South African place names. I hope to attend the meeting at the end of the month as well. I hope it is clear that I am here to build an encyclopedia. This post is intended to serve as a genuine apology and explanation for why this won't happen again. I fully understand that it was my disruptive editing style that largely contributed to my ban. I maintain that I have not baselessly accused users of being neo-nazis but that my concerns about [[WP:BIAS]] and [[WP:NONAZIS]] can be handled much more maturely, politely, and calmly. [[User:Desertambition|Desertambition]] ([[User talk:Desertambition#top|talk]]) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing and I now have a much stronger grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. I apologize for my lack of patience and calm. These guidelines were not 100% clear to me beforehand. I hope it is at least partially understandable why I was so confused. It often felt like I was being given conflicting guidance. However, that does not excuse my immaturity and lack of patience. I am working on a much more comprehensive review related to the problems I laid out previously. My arguments are often overly emotional and I recognize that. I intend to further develop a more neutral writing style. I explicitly have not called users neo-nazis because I wanted to avoid being banned for calling users neo-nazis without cited edits. So I believed it to be reasonable to post my concerns on the Administrator's Noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1064434711 "We on Wikipedia do [not] take this accusations lightly. This is not the first time you make them. But this is definitely the last time, because if this is not I will block you account next time you accuse anyone on Wikipedia in [Neo-Nazi] propaganda. Refusing to move the article on Port-Elisabeth has nothing to do with Nazism, and if you are not capable of understanding this you should not be editing Wikipedia." - [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] This seems unnecessarily mean and rude. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1064446141&oldid=1064443841 "How is advocating for a white ethnostate not nazi stuff? Didn't say that just refusing to move Port Elizabeth is Nazism and it's disingenuous to imply I did." - [[User:desertambition|desertambition]] That's a question but I am not going around accusing users of being neo-nazis nor did I create a new thread. I do not see why this sentence is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am also not an anti-white/Afrikaner racist like some admins were suggesting in the linked thread. I find those accusations completely absurd and inappropriate. Also want to note that [[Orania, Northern Cape]], an article some admins said was completely neutral and unbiased received significant revisions following my post. I continued to inform [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] that I was working on a more comprehensive list of users with cited edits (which had been specifically requested by both [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] and [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], among others) and had told this to [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#Working_on_Comprehensive_Review_of_Suspected_South_African_White_Nationalists/Sympathizers|here]]. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Desertambition&diff=1064451078&oldid=1064450719 [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] either ignored my question or did not see it. I pinged his user to make sure the post was seen. I stand by the statement that my concerns were not taken seriously but I will work to raise my concerns in a more convincing and polite manner in the future. I have never intended to cause harmful disruption and I do take issue with the accusation that I am [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia. I attended the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/South_Africa/South_Africa_13|Wikipedia South Africa meetup]] and had a very reasonable and polite discussion on the topic of South African place names. I hope to attend the meeting at the end of the month as well. I hope it is clear that I am here to build an encyclopedia. This post is intended to serve as a genuine apology and explanation for why this won't happen again. I fully understand that it was my disruptive editing style that largely contributed to my ban. I maintain that I have not baselessly accused users of being neo-nazis but that my concerns about [[WP:BIAS]] and [[WP:NONAZIS]] can be handled much more maturely, politely, and calmly. [[User:Desertambition|Desertambition]] ([[User talk:Desertambition#top|talk]]) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing and I now have a much stronger grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. I apologize for my lack of patience and calm. These guidelines were not 100% clear to me beforehand. I hope it is at least partially understandable why I was so confused. It often felt like I was being given conflicting guidance. However, that does not excuse my immaturity and lack of patience. I am working on a much more comprehensive review related to the problems I laid out previously. My arguments are often overly emotional and I recognize that. I intend to further develop a more neutral writing style. I explicitly have not called users neo-nazis because I wanted to avoid being banned for calling users neo-nazis without cited edits. So I believed it to be reasonable to post my concerns on the Administrator's Noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1064434711 "We on Wikipedia do [not] take this accusations lightly. This is not the first time you make them. But this is definitely the last time, because if this is not I will block you account next time you accuse anyone on Wikipedia in [Neo-Nazi] propaganda. Refusing to move the article on Port-Elisabeth has nothing to do with Nazism, and if you are not capable of understanding this you should not be editing Wikipedia." - [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] This seems unnecessarily mean and rude. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1064446141&oldid=1064443841 "How is advocating for a white ethnostate not nazi stuff? Didn't say that just refusing to move Port Elizabeth is Nazism and it's disingenuous to imply I did." - [[User:desertambition|desertambition]] That's a question but I am not going around accusing users of being neo-nazis nor did I create a new thread. I do not see why this sentence is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am also not an anti-white/Afrikaner racist like some admins were suggesting in the linked thread. I find those accusations completely absurd and inappropriate. Also want to note that [[Orania, Northern Cape]], an article some admins said was completely neutral and unbiased received significant revisions following my post. I continued to inform [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] that I was working on a more comprehensive list of users with cited edits (which had been specifically requested by both [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] and [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], among others) and had told this to [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#Working_on_Comprehensive_Review_of_Suspected_South_African_White_Nationalists/Sympathizers|here]]. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Desertambition&diff=1064451078&oldid=1064450719 [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] either ignored my question or did not see it. I pinged his user to make sure the post was seen. I stand by the statement that my concerns were not taken seriously but I will work to raise my concerns in a more convincing and polite manner in the future. I have never intended to cause harmful disruption and I do take issue with the accusation that I am [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia. I attended the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/South_Africa/South_Africa_13|Wikipedia South Africa meetup]] and had a very reasonable and polite discussion on the topic of South African place names. I hope to attend the meeting at the end of the month as well. I hope it is clear that I am here to build an encyclopedia. This post is intended to serve as a genuine apology and explanation for why this won't happen again. I fully understand that it was my disruptive editing style that largely contributed to my ban. I maintain that I have not baselessly accused users of being neo-nazis but that my concerns about [[WP:BIAS]] and [[WP:NONAZIS]] can be handled much more maturely, politely, and calmly. [[User:Desertambition|Desertambition]] ([[User talk:Desertambition#top|talk]]) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}