User talk:ADP85xzVcQD

Welcome!

Hello, ADP85xzVcQD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Arcadian (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2019 (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).

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have followed all the requests by the editors. For instance, an entire paragraph of text was reverted on Pacific Symposium on Biocomputer because it didn't have a secondary citation, only a primary citation. The instructions for Wikipedia say a primary citation is sufficient, but the editor wants a secondary. So I revert, additionally adding the citation for "Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036." I explain this is a secondary citation to an article in a high impact science journal. The editor persists in saying it isn't a secondary citation. This is for a 20+ impact factor scientific journal not at all associated with the award, and the text of that paper describes the award and the first two awardees. The journal article is behind a paywall, but it is made available through PubMed at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710834/. I explain, and revert making further edits to add more citations. At that point, she/he asked me to move it to the "talk" page, so I did. You will see that text there now beginning with: "I have proposed the following section which two editors call promotional/spam/advertising. I hope someone can make them suitable and add them to the page. I am working to find more references.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)" You can also see the time. It is 12 hours later there is this comment, "curprev 15:54, 18 June 2019‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ 2,398 bytes -1,181‎ Undid revision 902331357 by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) per bbb23's last comment, get consensus on the talk page FIRST, the notion that the sources included are independent coverage is incorrect, they're listings and eligibility criteria. undo Tag: Undo". And now my account is blocked? Yet I'm the ONLY editor trying to get consensus. Meanwhile, I've been hunting down primary and secondary sources, building content, etc. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; you state above that you are taking a permanent LOA from Wikipedia, meaning there is no reason to unblock you. If you change your mind and want to edit, you are free to make a new request. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2019 (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).

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear 331dot, I think it would be unfair to not resolve it now for three reasons: (1) if I ever change my mind it would be difficult to request an unblock at a later date, (2) I took the time to gather that evidence, and (3) while I do not want to edit or use Wikipedia, I would like to resolve the issue I raised about the editors. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2019 (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).

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear 331dot or Acroterion or other administrator, The block is not necessary because there was no damage or disruption to Wikipedia and there will not be. I have followed all the requests by the editors. I routinely seek out the guidance pages, and make it clear which guidance pages I'm using and referring to. I make suggestions on how those could be improved, since I do not feel I am qualified to improve them. I have evidence provide above that I was trying to build consensus. I asked for help numerous times, yet I have yet to receive any help. When I apparently made a typographical mistake on a page about deletion, I apologized to the editor. I have been collegial, even when others throw insults at me, including yet again earlier today. I have stood by the five pillars even when others have not. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You continue to show absolutely no understanding of why you were blocked and how you intend to change your behavior, despite claiming to take a leave of access. You continue to spam unblock requests while solely attacking other editors for their conduct instead of looking at your own. I have now removed access to your talk page because you continue to spam these requests. Sasquatch t|c 04:53, 19 June 2019 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25860 was submitted on Jul 10, 2019 19:13:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25866 was submitted on Jul 11, 2019 02:55:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]