User talk:2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3

July 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Thunderbird (mythology), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Thunderbird (mythology). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology), you may be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

listen man/woman i gave you two references now. publish my real actual researched stuff or get off an "intellectual website" as a mod. if you want multiple references then ask. but you just knocking me off and sending me crappy letters than I cant even read then not responding to me appropriately is really annoying. I have facts. why arent you publishing them now that i have 2 sources. i can find more if youd like. stop deleting my facts. or i will report you. 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No! I don't think so Untamed1910 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and i gave you references. reputable ones. 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah well. its not fake news. im being honest. it is really mythology from maine and the surroundings. you are ignoring the truth. 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Thunderbird (mythology). Untamed1910 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

listen dude. its not original research and i dont know where you think it is. it is actually books of folklore. FOLKLORE. REAL MYTHOLOGY. wtf? 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You can't just edit war to get your stuff in, and you'll need to do better in talk page discussions--start with reliable secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did put reliable secondary scources there. this guy just stops me from posting without telling me why. he didnt answer me or explain anything. thats why i posted so much. have i posted crazy since weve been talking? no? its because im not an unreasonable man.

the fact is that i put in my edits. they have sources. i have two. i can find more im certain about it. i know it too. would you have blocked my edits now that i have two sources? fine then i will find three. will you block me still? he cant just block war and remain silent. he perpetuates the war. thats your guy. not me. 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2024 (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).

2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2024 (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.

i have sources. the guy left me haning and didnt explain anything to my as to why he stopped my edits. then he kept doing it and finally when i tried to talk to him he just shut me down. he sounds like hes a real mean person who is way too offputtish to be soemone who should be dealing with sensitive cultural information. i have included two sources for my stuff. i will find three if you wish. my sources are older than all of us and are reputable, yet they are shot down? for what reason? do you shoot down oral traditions of the indians or the chinese? do you shove off written works two hundred years old as fake writing? my book is over 125 years old. it is not a fake book of oral tradition made real. besides that one, i have another source i stated. i can find more. i would like to enter my information about the cultural "Thunderbird" of the katahdin mountains i the appropriate section of wikipedia. 2601:19E:4384:1830:1D62:EE22:2812:83C3 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you had reliable sources, you could have presented them in the edit or on the talk page. No one was being mean: editors were upholding our editorial standards. Try again when the block expires, or read the instructions and place a proper unblock request, preferably in proper grammar and with good punctuation. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.