User talk:2601:C4:C380:49E0:4DF8:5880:3400:5E88

Lack of discussion[edit]

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:C4:C380:49E0:4DF8:5880:3400:5E88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unilateral block by User:Graham87 without any discussion or consensus from anyone. Graham87's action is an example of inebriated power trip. I am sure this isn't how Wikipedia is run. --2601:C4:C380:49E0:4DF8:5880:3400:5E88 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your comment is an example of a personal attack and you are an example of a person showing unfathomable disrespect to Wikipedia by unbelievably long-term prolific editing, including patently ridiculous edits like this, without an account. You're probably a block evader. Talk page access revoked. Graham87 02:19, 13 September 2021 (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.

Graham87, if that diff is the most egregious example of a patently ridiculous edit you can find you may wish to reconsider the block. Wiktionary supports that etymology for canter - wikt:canter#Etymology 1. At a glance at the /64's contributions I don't see anything rising to a blockable level let alone TPA removal. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Canter and gallop#Etymology isn't quite so equivocal ... and the entry (along with its lengthened version) are rather obscure compared to most of the others on that list. After checking their other edits including, say, this addition of relatively trivial info, I did wonder whether I'd overreacted, but then their unblock appeal on UTRS was declined for containing abuse. Before it was declined I wrote this: "I'd perhaps consider an unblock if this user promised to have *one* account and stick to it, but there's so much maniacal invective in the unblock request, including unwarranted and evidence-free accusations of doxing, that I'm not at all inclined to unblock at this point. The user has far too advanced a knowledge of Wikipedia for an ordinary IP editor." Perhaps the word "maniacal" was a bit strong but I stand by most of what I wrote there. I went on to say among other things that I felt this situation was very fishy, but I'd be willing to let other admins re-enable talk page access and I myself have done this as a starting point. Graham87 12:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, you had blocked me from creating a WP account. You didn't reason with me for any article on that article's discussion page. I couldn't understand why you were reverting my edits wholesale. It appears mindless reversion. I didn't talk to you on your talk page to avoid disturb you. I wanted to talk on each article's talk page that you objected to.

Even if a user edits without a source, you can insert a {fact} tag and discuss.--2601:C4:C380:49E0:4DF8:5880:3400:5E88 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:C4:C380:49E0:, it would be better to focus on what will improve in future rather than beating up on Graham if you want to be unblocked. The general rule is that you retain access to your talk page while blocked so that you may appeal your block. Not for any other purpose. Cabayi (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I'd give you the ability to create an account once you'd promised to do so going forward and let me know its username. Also ""Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose". On looking through your edits a bit more, I found a couple that really gave me pause: we don't mention rantings of conspiracy theorists cited to their YouTube videos, let alone devote entire sections to them, nor do we mention opinions of prominent non-subject matter experts about a person's research, again cited to a Youtube video (though the latter edit isn't as bad). Graham87 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re tagging uncited new additions, it's infinitely better not to make such edits in the first place. See the first quote about this at Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. Graham87 13:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to create an account.--2601:C4:C380:49E0:4DF8:5880:3400:5E88 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would its username be? You can use Special:CentralAuth to check if a username is already in use. Also, you don't have to answer this, but I'm wondering when you started editing Wikipedia? Your editing style reminds me of an editor who learnt their craft in 2007 or 2008 or so ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14Jenna7Caesura --2601:C4:C380:49E0:4DF8:5880:3400:5E88 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unblocked. Happy editing! Graham87 15:09, 13 September 2021 (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.