User talk:Juanpumpchump

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited RMS Orama (1911), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suburb and Surbiton

Hello. I cannot understand your ES saying "Suburb" hails originally Surbiton, which is south of this area. The words Suburb and Surbiton do not appear to be etymologically connected – but do feel free to show evidence that they are – and, even if they were, the business about it being to the South is hard to see as a reason for the edit. I would respectfully suggest that you read up on Suburb vs. Surbiton before using this argument further. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ship prefixes

I am finding your removal of ship prefixes from Lead paragraphs, especially where they are part of the article title, unhelpful as it leaves no explanation to the reader of their meaning. And your standard edit summary is confusing because, at least in those that I have seen, there was in any case no implication that it was part of the actual name, which is rendered in italics for that purpose. Please see WP:PREFIXSHIP and MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which reads "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". - Davidships (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships Hi, the prefixes are not part of the ships actual name.

If you disagree, then take a look at any photos of the ships in question and see if you see RMS, SS, MV etc.

You will find that won't see any of them physically displayed on the actual vessels - please feel free to come up with a solution.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that ship prefixes are indeed not part of the ships' names, which why they are not in italics. They are present in some ship article titles for a number of reasons - for some because that is how reliable sources commonly refer to them (SS United States or RMS Queen Mary, for example), or for disambiguation purposes, or both. But I disagree that there is any need to remove such prefixes, and doing so has disadvantages, as I indicated above. In short, no solution is required because there is no problem. - Davidships (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships Surely the prefix is acceptable for just the title of the article?

You never hear, for example Cunard's Queen Mary 2 or the retired QE2 described with the RMS prefix added into the conversation, the same goes for the current Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria nor the new Queen Anne with MV.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not conversations, they are pieces of formal writing. If you look at the references in the article RMS Queen Mary you will see that many include "RMS"; similarly with SS United States. If you want to change WP:PREFIXSHIP and/or MOS:LEADSENTENCE, you will need to seek consensus at the relevant talk page/s. - Davidships (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships If you wish to take the time to correct them because you simply do not agree with the changes, then that is your choice, but an edit war is something that I'm am not honestly interested in being part of.

Regards,

Juanpumpchump (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed that you have resumed making these unhelpful and unneccessary edits when you know that they are contrary to previous consensus already linked above, as well as in WP:SHIPNAME, and without making any attempt to propose a change in this guidance. - Davidships (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Davidships here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships very disappointing that you feel the need to deliberately attack and complain over the matter.

I actually did those recent changes to see if you were stalking me - so I was right there. Juanpumpchump (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Some of those articles are on my watchlist. The WP project proceeds by consensus, which is why I advised the right way to seek change to the guidance if you think it neccessary. - Davidships (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello! I came across your username as a result of the above. Separately from all that, though, I was wondering if you have thoughts on if it violates the sexually explicit provision of WP:DISRUPTNAME. I would advise changing it following the steps at WP:RENAME. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juanpumpchump. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the discussion (which will likely be closed in the next day or so) is strongly in favour of you changing your username, so please start considering what you would like to change it to. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Hello, all I will state for the record is that my username has become the target of a particular person or persons who for the simple reason that it does not suit their narrative.

That particular person felt "so offended" that they needed to message me and tell me that basically they didn't like it and that I should change it or they would go down a path of trying to force the issue - when there really isn't one.

Wikipedia is a great source of information, but unfortunately, it has far too many SJW's and others who are unable or unwilling to hear anyone elses argument - because they don't want to hear it.

I have tried to attach a YouTube video of Konstantin Kisin addressing the Oxford Union - please search for this as I can not attach it.

He talks at great length about the current generation and woke culture and what I have just stated above because it is very similar to what I have had done to me here and I request that the one or all parties involved should watch it and it to be discussed before any further decision is made.

I have also stated how and why I chose my name and how it is not offensive.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you at least recognize why some people may believe it to be a play on words? While you may have been entirely honest about the origin of your name, I do think that some people would, by default, infer that your name is sexual in nature. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I'm afraid that I stand by respinse that for some people on here - it does not "fit their narrative".

Their behaviour is simply terrible and that is also very sad (even borderline pathetic) that they have to behave in such an oppressive and controlling manner.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanpumpchump: That doesn't answer my question. I don't know you and you don't know me, I'm impartial to the matter and the history behind it. My question is simply, do you see how others might interpret your username as a sexual joke or play on words? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh There is no point.

Narrative proved. Juanpumpchump (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanpumpchump: There is a point but your awful attitude and refusal to answer the question/acknowledge why some may view the name as offensive make me think you know what you're doing with the name. There's no narrative lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Keep up the childish woke behaviour. Juanpumpchump (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanpumpchump: Please define woke and point out what aspect of what I've done was childish (I don't recall dancing around a question or making a sexual username as a joke). I had no idea acting as an independent and uninvolved admin reaching out to someone makes me woke, so I'd like to understand what I've done to wake up. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh If you take the time to go and watch the youtube video of Konstantin Kisin addressing the Oxford Union he describes you perfectly.

He describes that the woke generation will scream and scream until because they want to get their narrative over, and nothing else matters.

With your repetitive messaging, which can be viewed as personal attacks at myself, then you are proving his point exactly. Juanpumpchump (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanpumpchump: So you can't define woke or point out any childish behaviour? Such as sexual puns in names? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it might make more sense to just let the RFC take its course. No one is going to convince anyone of anything here. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam Thank you for intervening.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because this discussion at WP:RFCN. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}} Primefac (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]