User talk:Shiznaw

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at White Puerto Ricans, you may be blocked from editing.
You've been making some disruptive edits on this article and multiple editors have reverting, citing good reasons in the edit summaries. Please do persist in making disruptive edits that flout the guidelines.''JesseRafe (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

'Disruptive' Editing To: JesseRafe (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Below is the text which I continue to insert as the opening paragraph for 'White Puerto Ricans'. In what world does any part of this fall under the ambiguously defined term, 'disruptive'. You need to dial your rhetoric down to level 1 when communicating your opinions on my page, son.

White Puerto Ricans are Puerto Ricans who self-identify as white due to a rubric of laws like the Regla del Sacar or Gracias al Sacar dating back to the 1700's where a person of mixed ancestry could be considered legally white so long as they could prove that at least one person per generation in the last four generations had also been legally white. Therefore, people of mixed ancestry with known white lineage were classified as white, the opposite of the "one-drop rule" in the United States.^[1]shiznaw (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Shiznaw. You have new messages at JesseRafe's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}} .  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Refining the definition of white Puerto Ricans with a cited source doesn't equate to edit warring, as edit warring is to imply wanton or willful changes in disregard of policy, procedure, or process. The sole change that I've made adds to the context of how a white puerto rican is self-defined. This seems to be somewhat of a heavy-handed way of addressing a controversy that shouldn't be. who is reverting my changes and why? what policy allows the status quo definition to remain, but would label any attempt in refining the definition to provide greater context as disruptive. How is this process normative and equitable?

Decline reason:

I don't see anywhere you've actually discussed your preferred language; you know how to use article talk pages, but for whatever reason you chose simply to keep putting in your version. That's edit warring; edit warring does not require malicious intent. You have indeed disregarded process by not using the talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:48, 20 October 2018 (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.

shiznaw (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so, the rule is to keep the status quo in place, no matter how ill-defined it is, until you open a topic on the talk page to discuss your proposed change. @Jpgordon:

Clarification: discussion is part of the process, but you need to discuss until you achieve consensus' for the change you want, or until it's clear that consensus doesn't agree with you. That's the sting of a community editing project. My recommendation is to discuss the changes, and to consider opening a neutrally-worded Request for Comment to get a wider field of input, if you are so inclined. What is not an option is to keep changing the article to conform to your perspective when other editors oppose the changes. Each one of us has strong feelings/beliefs/understandings about various topics. In a community editing project, it is unreasonable and unrealistic for us to demand that our perspective be the dominant perspective so long as there is opposition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The problem here with your narrative is that my simple one paragraph edit doesn't reflect my perspective or personal opinion, rather it's a cited fact. Nothing more, nothing less. The only failure I see here is not opening a discussion on the talk page after the 3rd revision. Now since I've been found in violation of such a grievous charge in the wiki-world, I can move forward with the knowledge that you guys operate by a differing set of rules than academia; learn by it; and adjust. I think we're done here. Moving on. shiznaw (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to thank you for participating in this discussion. Secondly, just because something is cited doesn't mean that it is mandatory for inclusion. As we often say here, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". There are often legitimate reasons why sourced content may not be included, like if the source is unreliable, or if the content represents a fringe opinion. (Not saying either of those things are applicable here, only presenting context.) It might also be totally possible that some aspects of the content you submitted were just not considered relevant for the article's lead, which tends to summarize content well-established elsewhere in the article. This would be something you would discover from discussion. (Although I think one of the editors objected to the quality of the content.) "my simple one paragraph edit doesn't reflect my perspective or personal opinion", maybe, but you feel/think/believe that content absolutely must be there, and other people disagree. So yeah, this is an "I think" vs. "they think" situation, like most edit-warring scenarios. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: If there are legitimate reasons as to why my cited edit shouldn't have been included, but yet none of what you mentioned above is applicable, then what was the actual reason? To this date, no one knows except the persistent clown who kept reverting my edit. The only rationale you have is predicated on the belief that all opinions and views are considered to be equal until we go through a process of weighing competing proposals before others who may or may not understand the subject matter, harbor a bias, etc. It seems to me that although the rules provide structure, but it's just messy enough to be ran like a well-meaning circus. Nonetheless, I have no choice, so we'll go thru the process.shiznaw (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"then what was the actual reason?" - Not to be smug, but if you actually wanted an answer, opening a discussion would likely have inspired one. Some of the objections JesseRafe raised on his talk page, although it wasn't pertinent that I understand his rationale. Anyway, look, I'm ready to unblock you, because you seem to be getting the message that this is a community project and we all get to decide what content appears or doesn't appear in articles. I just want to make one additional issue clear: since this is a community project, we don't allow name-calling or other forms of personal attacks. Some people find this very difficult to control, and community editing isn't for everybody. But if you can promise to keep a cool head even when someone might be shitting on your contribution, and not call people names (like clowns), then we can get you out of this hole. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: It's not incumbent upon me, when I supply additional info that I think pertinent, to convince a single admin that my contribution meets his/her sensibilities. According to how the structure is set here in WikiWorld, it's my job to prove that whatever info I provide is sourced, reasonable, and pertinent. If this guy had an express issue or specific complaint, then we go thru 'the process'. Whatever I provide could be redundant, superfluous, or just downright unnecessary. I think we all understand that. My point is that simply reverting my edit doesn't equate to offering a substantive reason as to why a contribution shouldn't exist. Upon my initial edit, I had met the minimum requirement of citing the source and providing relevance as to the ambiguity of the defining term 'white puerto ricans'. This is the least - the bare minimum - that was required. I had met that requirement. Full Stop. Reverting such changes is the equivalent of a ' lazy man's ' way of engaging in thoughtful and considerate debate and it undercuts the spirit of how the rules and policies exist to provide a meaningful product to the public. AS far as calling this guy a 'clown' is concerned WP:NPA Policy, the term exists for a reason. LOL. Ohhh, I crack myself up. But, to your point: No, I can't promise anything. I can only learn what rules you guys are playing by and adjust my behavior to abide by those rules and policies set forth. That's the best, I would expect, anyone to do. Cheers.shiznaw (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've released the block, because I feel like you're willing to discuss the changes. Good luck with the discussion, and if you have questions or need advice, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tina Turner have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert "an Black American-born Swiss singer" - what about this change didn't appear constructive...can you explain? shiznaw (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:ETHNICITY. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. So are you suggesting that Tina Turner's black heritage is not a significant part in her musical contributions?!? I'm confused here. shiznaw (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it relevant specifically to her notability? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert Wait..What? It's her core identity. Is this a joke? shiznaw (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

She's not notable because she was black. She's notable for being a great singer. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"She's not notable because she was black. She's notable for being a great singer." Neveselbert Classic Strawman Fallacy. No one argued "Because Tina is Black, she is a great singer". Black (negro) is an integral part of who she is and the songs she created and sang.

Aso if you insist on arguing this point, we need to move it over to [Turner Talk Page]. shiznaw (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Talk:Yoruba_Americans, which you proposed for deletion. You cannot prod a talk page. If you wish to prod the article, put it on the article page. Also, you must leave an edit summary saying that you proposed deletion, which you did not. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jfire. I noticed that you recently removed content from Yoruba Americans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If you were a newbie, then I might understand your recent edits as mistakes, but some of these recent edits of your are major errors. Please take your time to think how other Wikipedians might misconstrue your good intentions. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Social ownership. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Having tagged your post on Talk:Black people as off-topic for a page solely for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article - which is, per policy, based on published sources and not on contributors' personal opinion, I felt I couldn't let your sweeping assertion pass uncommented on. It is, to be blunt, just plain wrong. In the case of the UK in particular, I don't think that 'wrong' even covers it - it may be regarded as downright offensive. 'Black Briton' as a form of self-identification is common, and the denial of legitimacy for such an identity is something one expects from the racist right, rather than from anyone using the word 'anthropological' on their user page. Needless to say, as always, "it's complicated", and I suspect that relatively few people would solely identify as 'Black British' and leave it at that. Just for a flavour of how complicated, take a look at this article by Sheryl Njini, a Cardiff-based writer and youth worker.

Navigating Dual Heritage through Music

“What even is a black Brit anyway?” I frequently encountered this question during a visit to the US last year. After the initial curiosity sparked by my accent, questions about my heritage, nationality and identity would follow. These interactions ranged from interesting cultural exchanges to unpleasant experiences where my identity was interrogated or dismissed...

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The term Black Briton was NEVER use as a a form of self identification, as you so ignorantly claim. Article: "The term Black British most commonly refers to Black people from the Commonwealth of Nations, such as from the British West Indies and British West Africa, lumping all melenated people together with no cultural context. In the 1970s, a time of rising activism against racial discrimination, the term Black was also applied to people from the Indian subcontinent. Black was used in this inclusive political sense to mean "non-white", otherizing anyone who's lineage isn't based in the UK. shiznaw (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I could produce further sources by the hundred to demonstrate that people routinely describe themselves as 'Black Briton' or 'Black British' if I wanted to. Given however that your nonsense has nothing to do with Wikipedia content, which requires published reliable sources rather than mere assertions by 'some random bloke on the internet', I will instead suggest that you take a little time to do some research before making even more of a fool of yourself. You can consider this discussion closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Any online sources you claim to produce would all skew current in a post-internet world when Black Brits revere themselves as Black American counter parts in the wake of BLM and the emergence of UK Rap and hip hop. There is little scholarly evidence, if any at all, to validate your claim that Nigerians, Jamaicans, and other West Indians simply flattened their identity to a non descript term as Black for the sake of assimilation in the UK. Nothing about your argument, no matter how hard you cry in Ad Hominem Attack Mode, speaks truth. shiznaw (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)