User talk:51.37.69.16

March 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.Please stop your aggressive behaviour. Nobody is trying to "control the narrative"; except maybe you by making false accusations. Discussion pages are for discussion, and well if you say I did something, it is entirely within reason for you to expect a response from me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Miss Canadian, babes, I don't assume bad faith, I see bad faith. You are disingenuous in your editing, and are clearly trying to control a narrative, it is not and has not been a secret, you've been incredibly, openly blatant about it. You only argue with users who are self described as LGBT+, and are clearly passing brown envelopes to people in authoritative positions to get what you want, your fake "oh it's all about helping the disabled users" when several disabled users with the exact issues you claim to be helping come and say that your edits do the exact opposite? Gutted. The cutesy "oh but I didn't know what I was doing" attitude doesn't cut it, the ignorance of any real knowledge about this significant cultural moment is disgusting. Rotted. The fact that you think you can write gospel without knowing anything about the subject is just abhorrent to me. BEAST. I hope I've made my points clear, you have upset too many people with your bad faith edits and your negative, discriminatory attitudes and practices, and we as a community will win here, you will not control our narrative anymore.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for block evasion.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Just wondering if someone could explain what "Block evasion" is? I've made a grand total of 3 posts on a talk page having lurked and followed the discussions for a long time, and as far as I am aware have not evaded any blocks? I think an accurate reason for a block is necessary, and not one with no basis in fact, no?51.37.69.16 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you have not evaded a block, then you are not the target of the block; you can avoid being caught up in blocks meant to target others by requesting an account at WP:ACC. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2021 (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.

I removed your duplicate request; unblock requests should only be placed in the larger edit window and not the smaller section header/edit summary window. You can avoid creating unnecessary section headers by clicking "edit" instead of "new section" at the top of this page(if on a computer). 331dot (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

---