User talk:Supersphingid

May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Hard and soft magic systems—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I recently made an edit of the 'hard and soft magic systems' page[1]. There is a section for Sanderson's three laws of magic which did not include Sanderson's 0th law, so I wrote an entry for it with an explanation of what it means and gave a citation to Sanderson discussing this law in his lecture series on youtube[2]. I've been blocked for 'not here to build an encyclopedia', however having read through the community guidlines etc. I do not think that this applies. I thought that the edit was relevant, gave a citation for the edit and I did not intend to cause any kind of upset. This was my first edit as I've always used wikipedia without an account - I made the account specifically because I realised this information was missing. If I have caused an issue through my ignorance then I apologise for doing so and I will hold off on any editing in the future, but would still appreciate the ability to do so if I see a need. Supersphingid (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

While the edit could be better phrased, and should definitely have a secondary source, Sanderson definitely has referred to, on several occasions, a "zeroth" law. As such, the editor was genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia. For future note, this was an accepted appeal, not merely an accepted unblock request. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]