User talk:Mwright1469

December 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Your recent edits are functionally indistinguishable from trolling, as I evaluate them. Please spend two weeks pondering how to contribute positively to the world's #5 website, or else please consider blogging elsewhere. If any adminstrator thinks that I have misunderstood this editor's contributions, please feel free to unblock without my further input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate action. I would still like an answer to the question you ignored regarding Beyond My Ken: what were you suggesting when you said "Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial". IWI (chat) 06:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, Cullen. Mwright1469's persistent silly condescension to BMK is considerably more uncivil than anything BMK has said, and obviously calculated to provoke. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Please refrain from gravedancing. Wikipedia is not a social network website or forum. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.234.100.169 (talk · contribs), please log in to your account if you wish to troll here. Bishonen | talk 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Your block

With Cullen's permission, I've reduced your block to 48 hours. You can start editing again then (if you want to), but please be circumspect. Deb (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

Thank you. I think it's best that Beyond My Ken and I agree to not continue associating. I can understand that he feels passionate about internet investigations and went too far into his accusations of me, but it's the New Year and I'm willing to look past it and move on. I think we both wasted enough time on this. He clearly has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia and I'm looking forward to both of us making the internet a better place for everyone.

Best, -Mwright1469 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ping me every time you mention me (including in edit summaries) by including my name in a Wikilink or by using the "ping" templates. I'm pinging @Deb: and @Cullen328: so they are aware of my request. FWIW, I do not agree to a voluntary interaction ban with you: I shall continue to examine your edits for the POV pushing you've been gulty of previously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Ok, if you insist :) thank you my friend. I was hoping you're not the type to hold a grudge like that.

But good luck with that. I know you're really interested in right-wing politics and European history but if you insist on following me around that much at least maybe you'll get the chance to also learn some cool things about Eastern culture and healthcare.

Thank you for helping me on my wiki learning curve, I actually learned quite a but over the last couple days! This experience seems to have really affected you. I hope you can find peace my friend.

Happy New Year everyone!🎄🎆

-Mwright1469 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I would recommend you stay off any potentially controversial topics for a while. It's probably best to limit yourself to purely factual edits, like fixing spelling mistakes or dates, and always have reliable sources handy. I would also stay off BMK's talk page if you can, and avoid any further ANI reports because they can easily boomerang - as you have found to your cost. I also recommend that you avoid undoing or reverting anyone else's edits unless they are obvious vandalism, because people sometimes get upset about things like that - better to discuss things on the article's talk page. If you are in any doubt about what is and isn't acceptable, there is always the Wikipedia:Teahouse where you can ask for other people's advice or opinions. Deb (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support Deb, will do.

Best wishes for the New Year!

-Mwright1469 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing a Couple Points

Hi Deb,

Was just reading through the ANI posts, I'm going to keep this as short as possible to save on the reading (sadly I can't send private messages on WP).
I can see that a lot of the users throwing accusations around claim they have done some "investigations" and are just awestruck at my "level of knowledge" of wikipedia. Honestly, I take this as a complement but I guess they don't realize everything I learned was verbatim either from BMK, couple of the admins and from the essays/WP articles.

A user claimed that using language like "we prefer secondary sources" is indicative of a puppet - humorous and ironic because this was literally my first interaction with BMK [1].
Didn't get a chance to send IWI this but the "lesser-known" WP:DROPTHESTICK essay was posted on my talk page by one of the admins. Maybe before throwing accusations around, do a tad bit of research. Don't blindly follow what BMK is telling you. Levivich had no problem point out Hindsight bias to my accusers, but I guess you ignored him as well.

I looked up Gamer Gate and I never edited that page. If the individual is referring to a game-related page, I was editing a piece that was based on a researcher who's name is notorious due to her unethical scientific methods. I was surprised that people actually included any of her studies in an encyclopedia, but I understand the standards for scientific evidence are different for certain reasons.
Finally, I'm not even going to entertain what Guy might have meant by "well-known problematic themes including racially charged themes", this comment is simply disgusting as a closure of a discussion. But I'll just advise him in the strongest terms to open up ANY medical textbook and learn about the million biological differences between ethnic groups - starting with embryology.

Anyway, thank you again for your support Deb, sadly I can't make any edits on ANI but I hope this resolves. I initially left wikipedia because it was incredibly confusing but I was told by colleagues the community is supportive about it. So far this has felt like a public lynching. If people are intimidated by my "knowledge of wikipedia" or the fact that I dared to add extra science to a gestation article (which btw deserves more content which I'll personally be adding to), there is not much I can tell them.
Cheers,
-Mwright1469 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please file an {{unblock}} request. See WP:GAB. That’s the smoothest path forward. I’m going to close that silly ANI discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and don't write a book, saying how hard done by you've been. Just concentrate on what you think you have to offer the project. Deb (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me encourage you to tune out the noise at ANI, much of which is irrelevant, and instead pay particular attention to what admin have posted here on your talk page, including the block notice (linking to WP:NOTHERE as the reason for the block) and the comments above, including the link to WP:GAB. Levivich (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hi Cullen, It's been quite a while since I have been on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if I could have my ban from 2018 lifted. Kind regards, Mike

You were not banned. I temporarily blocked you for troll-like behavior and later agreed to let you be unblocked early by another administrator. You resumed the disruptive behavior and were then blocked indefinitely by yet another administrator. You must precisely follow the unblock request instructions in the block notices above. You will need to explain your understanding of why you were blocked, and provide convincing assurances that your disruptive behavior will never happen again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]