User talk:Wallet's an idiot

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Trump Derangement Syndrome, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 00:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Trump Derangement Syndrome. General Ization ^Talk 00:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2018 (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).

Wallet's an idiot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I contend that the term I edited (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is not defined by any medical, scientific, or judicial literature. It simply has been coined loosely in the vernacular, yet has multiple flexible meanings. Ignoring my definition goes against the current accepted uses of the term(s)

Decline reason:

See the explanation below. Max Semenik (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2018 (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.

We rely on reliable sources here, not on your opinions. The reliable sources cited in the article reflect the use "in the vernacular" of the term, which is what we are committed to reflect here. You were blocked not only because you failed to cite a source but also because you failed to discuss your edits on the Talk page, which would have been the appropriate action (especially once reverted) if you disagreed with the definition expressed in the article or wanted to propose an alternative. General Ization ^Talk 01:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A review of you your edits shows they were nakedly POV and intentionally disruptive. To believe otherwise would require suspension of commonsense. I will let someone else address your unblock request, but I stand by the block and see no reason why it should be lifted or mitigated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]