If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Welcome to my user page. E-mail me if you *must* (not happening)
My hobby is studying evil cabal persecution of political prisoners, form a purely clinical perspective, of course. Any rumors to the effect I have recently escaped from the asylum are original research, hearsay and/or unsourced speculation and should be ignored. Despite this, publicly I feign neutrality on the subject of Naruda and the cause of his untimely demise.
Please feel free to comment on my potential new article and edit suggestions sandbox pages. I very much encourage you to read and comment on these. I heartily encourage debate in appropriate areas. Please, absolutely _no_ "I'm looking for a manager for my trailer court" type posts, unless you are able to do so while conforming entirely within the lines of and completely to Wikipedia guidelines. Athankew
In my private life, I maintain a thrilling love affair with magnetotacticum. I look forward to incorporating this into a new article about maliciousanimal magnetism (or 'malicious magnetism'?), which I hope to be eventually successful in encouraging the management to allow the creation of. I also hope to herald the return of the one on de:gedankenlenkung (and especially de:maschinengedankenlenkung, so that it may be translated into English, an achievement of which I think it is (or more pertinently, was) well worthy.
For the original, please click here. (Deprecated; WARNING: Not for the faint of heart)
Disclaimer
I apologize in advance but it appears recent events may be clarifying to me it may be necessary to include this instruction in a prominent place. If you are here for a reason other than to cause problems and be irritating because you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ignore:
I am well aware there exists a strong and powerful sentiment that as much relevant material as possible be excluded 'in the interests of brevity' and that this has a substantial lobby. I am also aware of Occams razor. As near as I can tell, the consensus was that Simple English Wikipedia be brought into existence expressly for this purpose. Please allow me to assure you that you will likely not see me editing this[1] any time in the near future.
UPDATE: as per {{{Uw-delete2}}} apparently one needn't always assume good faith after all. (Nice try though. I know, blatant 'well played sir, another?' moment. Thanks for caring.™)
There are various reasons why one cannot immediately edit one or more pages as they should be in order to enable it to meet certain standards, or even to prevent it from being deleted. If an editor states his/her intentions to make some improvement, but that more time is needed for any reason, this should very much be respected.
Hi 55378008a! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)
You added a lot of terms to the See also section in Chemical castration that do not appear related to the article. Wikipedia requires for the See also terms to be directly or indirectly related to the subject and for the term to link to an existing article, no red links. See WP:ALSO. I cannot tell how the terms you added are related and other editors have reversed your edits. Please only add terms that are directly or indirectly related and most people would understand the connection. You can annotate the terms if they connection is not readily apparent Thank you. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy and thanks for your message. Please tell me the term(s) you are unclear how they are related and I will be happy to explain it to you. A note on why the relation is unclear to you would be helpful ie 'this is a poisonous plant, I don't understand poisons cause impotence' -type comments would be helpful. Thanks. I look forward to your response. As to the red links, please see paragraphs above you are referencing the WP:MOS which is not a policy.
The policy (or guideline) you refer me to states red links drive (spur) contributions. As to what 'most people understand' I would be very happy to hear your opinion on the paragraph on simple wikipedia above (on this same talk page.) Please notify me if you require section links to navigate from this section to the aforementioned ones. Additionally it is only one red link. It is not constructive to accuse people of being unconstructive, especially without specifics.
Incidentally I have been active on the talk page of that article for well over a year with no other activity. However I do appreciate boldness in taking action right away without bothering to check in. I don't consider it a minimally courteous simple decency either. Oh wait, I did. Thanks nonetheless. I'd say I eagerly await a response but something tells me Im dealing with bots (WP:TW?) and I'm never going to hear from them again, like the other guy this morning and the guy yesterday (the invisible man with the personal vendetta against, of all things, the Blacklisting article. Just like to state again easily a candidate for one of the finest articles on wikipedia. I am assuming good faith though and not wondering if my talk page is being edited disruptively.
The article is unbalanced. 95 % of the text is about medicolegal aspects, which in reality constitute less than 1 per cent of actual practice in the real world. No one cites claims on their talk pages and the "sky is blue" doesn't need a citation. If I removed what a heartless (and untruthful) person would call blatantcrap, now that would undoubtedly be disruptive, or at the very least a lot more noticeable. However, I am not what most people would call a deletionist. "Hello I don't understand" and I never hear from you again is not very- it's threatening, but it isn't much else (if you'd like to see my bot comment I just made, about two paragraphs ago. Please Let me know if you need an internal link). Thanks again and I eagerly await your response. - 55378008a (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last time you added a lot of See also terms an editor deleted them because the editor did not understand the connection to the subject of the article.[2]. I haven't deleted any of your terms, and I won't. I am just letting you know that I also don't understand the connection to the article. It's not that big of a deal. If you want to address this further to the other editors, you can use the talk page. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you want to know you can ask me. I am sorry if people don't understand, but this isnt 'explain everything to me -pedia' either. I reference the easily confused to simple, as above. Incidentally, it did turn out to be a pretty big deal. Additionally, I stopped adding more than 2-3 links at a time to see also sections, even though no one told me what links they didn't understand or gave me a chance to state how they comply with the tangential requirement in WP:ALSO. - SalamanderwithCouscous19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ive had that particular epiphany a few times now, I know but a few more of these exchanges and I should start keeping it in mind. Butcher my see also sections all you want. I dont even mind if you accuse my entries of not being relevant when I know they are. (Or the far more difficult to refute 'not relevant enough.') I'm fully aware you can't have see also sections that are three times the size of the article, at least in theory. 55378008a (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The connections are readily apparent and none of the other see also sections on Wikipedia are annotated, probably because it would look cluttered. I you don't understand, you can ask before you revert. Although clearly you dont have to. - SalamanderwithCouscous19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DVdm piles on telling me I 'better leave editing [Wikipedia] alone'; again no specifics offered; mis-spells 'altogehter' and 'admidded' (?); begins to resemble 2nd grade 'smear the queer'
I suggest that from now on you leave the See also sections alone. If indeed you are what you call a "serial offender in stuff people dont understand, even yourself", then you better leave it alone, unless you want to get blocked from editing altogeher for lack of competence—see wp:CIR. It is not our job to run behind you and check all your edits. If you admiddedly don't understand that guideline, then you should seriously consider avoiding risking to work against it to begin with. Also note that even if this is about the guideline "WP:MOS which is not a policy", systematically ignoring guidelines can and often does result in being prevented from working. And we do have a policy about working from a neutral point of view (wp:POV). If you think that an article is unbalanded, then the best place to go, is the article talk page, and discuss what could be done about it. Adding your personal thoughts by throwing unrelated subjects into the See also section is not the way. - DVdm (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again DVdm and thanks for telling me I 'better leave [it] alone.' Not a single person who has posted to this page, mostly with threats, has went to the article talk page. Literally not a single one, out of well, maybe 4. (Maybe 8 or generously a dozen now if you count the noticeboard - SalamanderwithCouscous19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)) If you had, you would have seen I did go to all those pages' talk pages. Not a single person who has posted here has done what you are suggesting. So I don't know; every organisation is composed of some people who can run anyone off. This isn't restricted to humans; it goes all the way down the food chain to bacteria. I don't intend to spend a lot of time editing here, because it doesnt do to let yourself be seen at the same place at the same time every day. That said, I do awful lot of things I dont intend to, including being at the same place every day.[reply]
If you don't understand me, how do you know Im incompetent? You know, if Im going to get run off even though I'm right, it's pointless to argue with you, and in fact probably dangerous, because people who hate being wrong can be quite nasty. You're not being neutral in accusing me of not being neutral. You know, if I'm going to get blocked, it's going to happen no matter who's right. At the same time, if you dont even know Ive been on the talk pages for more than a year, you might be as accurate about your block threat as you are that. If I'm going to regardless though, it just enough of the right people to do it.
Nobody yet has given me a singly specific. Even you will never come up with a single see also entry you can point a finger at, it's always vague threats about youre not this or that. So anyway I had a good time and if I cant log in next time, it's been fun. Get some sleep. Oh and if you want to post some specifics, the talk page or here I look forward to responding to your concerns. But I know you wont, because you would have already and Ive been on those talk pages for over a year.
Youre giving me a worse time now that I'm making one addition per edit, than I was when I was making 5-10 at a time, pages that hadnt seen an editor (on the talk page) (other than myself) for over a year. Then suddenly after over a year of being ignored, and some very extreme real life nastyness by poeple I wont mention, because Im sure you know the policy, how is that anything but cyberbullying. Last question, and I realice fully editing Wikipedia, like most things in life, is a priviledge and not a right, but if I get blocked for making less than 3 reversions of a single edit per day, why is there a 3 reversion per day rule. Again thanks for all your assistance and maybe see you tomorrow? You know, I don't want to get blocked even if I intended never to come back but I'm not going to sacrifice a kid or anything not to. I'm not sure if we are communicating however I appreciate the suggestion,[which?] awfully kind of you. - 55378008a (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC) - SalamanderwithCouscous19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No see also additions have citations. Style manual says not to. Is that why youre ordering me not to make any more see also edits, because they dont require citations and reverting prose is what youre most successful at running off noew editors at? Are you worried Im making edits too fast Ill qualify for an administratorship too fast? Thats patently ridiculous; I never made it off the first level of pyroto mountain either (speaking of real life nastiness). So I'm happy to hear more of your specific objections; that was a good one. I honestly have to say I dont understand why a few edits would make so many people seem so angry, so suddenly all at once, especially to a page that say no activity for over a year (specifically the talk page. Thanks for engaging. - 55378008a (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC) - SalamanderwithCouscous19:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source for a see also link is the article the link is to. Also of course my edits arent sourced after you delete them. I am uncertain if some of the recent edits to this page yet remain in the realm of WP:CIVIL. - 55378008a (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC) - SalamanderwithCouscous19:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free also to answer my question about why Ill get blocked for making too many edits when theres a three reverts a day rule and Ive made exactly one revert in the nearly 2 years Ive had an account, and that was to removal for no cite literally while I was looking for the cite and I reverted to add the cite, as it was reverted 'for not having a cite,' even though it was a 'sky is blue' -type comment that balanced the section. Again, if theyre going to block me regardless of what I say or do Im wasting my time trying to say anything. They have to know what they want to do; if some guy is making edits that endanger their funding, or worse, people have to protect themselves, its natural. While Im not trying to get blocked, if they do I understand and thats fine.
I signed up knowing full well that its their website and they can do whatever they want; pretty sure thats in the terms of service and at the very least a sort of oral contract. Oh the revert of my edit was in violation of WP:VOLUNTEER by the way, not that it matters if like you say it doesnt matter. I encounter such situations in life literally all the time; Im used to it. Oh and a lot worse. As they say, 'Wikipedia is in the real world.' Anyway Im sorry you felt you had to make all these threats and I look forward to bolstering our burgeoning friendship, or not as the case may be. - 55378008a (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Premenstrual syndrome. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. It is your opinion that the sources you cited are relevant to the article. But that's not how we do it in wikipedia and, frankly, you ought to know that by now - you've been warned often enough. The sources must state the conclusion EXPLICITLY - you may not infer it. Please read WP:SYNTHAndyjsmith (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No ones ever warned me that my citation wasnt relevant to the article. Where do you see that? Feel free to post a link. Its everyones opinion that sources they cite are relevant to the article. Firstly you are incorrect I do not have an opinion and secondly just because someone believes something or does something doesnt mean theyre wrong. Sky is blue doesnt need a citation.
@Andyjsmith: If you dont believe the section needs an update, why dont you revert the {needs update tag}. Thanks for finally getting back to me. You have unanswered questions on this page, above. Giving editors trying to work together with you the cold shoulder isnt WP:CONSENSUS. Or WP:CIVIL. Im not going to even bother to try to ask you to read those because, well, I dont feel its my place and waste of time, right? - I asked on the talk page what was thought of the citation and you didnt say anything. You still havent said whats wrong with it, you just said you dont like it. Theres so many people that dont like when someone edits its tough to tell whos being e-territorial and whos WP:UNCIVIL. Im not doing synthesis and besides, if it improves the article, the rules dont mean anything. - 55378008a (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way. - WP:JWP
this is just stating an opinion but it doesnt stop some. Not only that, but unconstructive edits are being made because valuable time is wasted by multiple editors that could be spent improving articles. - 55378008a (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I actually wrote. Follow the link to WP:SYNTH - it explains why I reverted you. Editors can and should revert errors - there's no need to talk about something that is quite clearly wrong. I have no views about whether the article needs updating, but I do know that your "update" wasn't what it needed because it broke wikipedia's guidelines - which you no longer have an excuse for pretending not to understand. You now have several editors on your case and you'll either have to start following the rules or risk some kind of sanction. Some of your edits are OK but some are disruptive - please consider why this is. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider I have no way of knowing what the opinion about whether edits are disruptive or not if Im not told. Is communication not the whole point of consensus? - 55378008a (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Please read what I actually wrote. - SalamanderwithCouscous20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave two cites, ones from nih.gov both are? how is that original research. Im not the first to look up a research paper on a government web site. - 55378008a (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I dont 'have them on my case,' theres a half dozen, sure which is plenty intimidating as Im sure you must know, but they make some wild claim and I ask them about it and they ignore me and now theyve started coming back with something else crazy. - 55378008a (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still havent answered my question about this morning. Youll come back in two hours with something else. Its against wikipedia guidelines to hound one issue. Actually thats a policy, not a guideline, if Im not mistaken. Besides, original research is allowed if it improves the article and sky is blue doesnt need a citation. Also you have less of an excuse for not understanding the rules than I do, because you claim to know them better than I do. Condescension is not civility. Wikipedias definitely in the real world, thats for sure.
Case in point, you've just admitted youve been reverting my edits because its your personal opinion theyre 'not OK.' Youre doing what youre accusing me of doing, and Im not even doing it. Plus youre doing personal attacks while ignoring my responses. And now youre putting me in fear for my life, too. Anyway thanks for all the responses. - 55378008a (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For neutrality and WP:BALANCE, you have to make two statements. Statement A. Not Statement A. You keep reverting statement A, of course its going to be unbalanced. And then you do a personal attack saying its an opinion. - 55378008a (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. - Thats WP:JWP again.
Because I know some are too busy to scroll up, how is Haversack Ruse questionable to an article about the same thing 20 years later. And why would that even disturb you so much, especially if you dont have an opinion. You only reverted it because it was your opinion you didnt like it, or it was your opinion you didnt want me to make any edits. - 55378008a (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its just opinion that those are questionable at best. I still havent seen a single example of anything thats questionable, except opinions about my edits. Oh and the constant personal attacks. - 55378008a (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andyjsmith 'wp:Twinkle' Warning about Nicotiana rustica with his personal opinion about what it seems to contain - no responses from anyone to my responses that doesn't ignore my response entirely or change the subject completely; (1st?) accusation of disruptive editing; discourteously neglects to mention what level warning it is
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Yet another irrelevant See Also - this time to a random make of cigarette that does NOT seem to use Nicotiana rustica and has no other relevance to the article. If you don't stop messing around like this you will definitely be sanctioned.Andyjsmith (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DVdmwp:Huggle Apparent Level 4 Warning about Nicotiana rustica edit - no response from anyone to my responses that doesn't ignore my response and/or change the subject completely
I could have sworn I made that edit a lot longer than 2 hours ago. I dispute that thats vandalism too, that was made in good faith. Can you make a comment about how youre assuming good faith? 55378008a (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia.
ah. Still not clear to me how that could be significantly harmful to Wikipedia. If those edits were really harmful to wikipedia, dont you need me to do that thing where I vanish and all the edits are unattributed? - 55378008a (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DVdm reverts my signature, reverts copy of block notice to top of page and appears to accuse me of violating wp:TALKO and 'changing other peoples comments'
Hello again DVdm and thank you for reverting my edits to my own talk page and accusing me of violating wp:TALKO. I am sure there is absolutely no chance you will explain to me how putting a copy of the block notice at the top of the page so people can see it without having to scroll down violates wp:TALKO?
Please feel free to leave your answer in this space -->
Also, perhaps you can explain to me why you are reverting my signature and accusing me of violating wp:TALKO in the edit summary and how you are doing so without being in violation of it yourself? Thanks - SalamanderwithCouscous20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to leave your answer in this space -->
I wasn't going to get to this until much, much later (the at least 6 months recommended here sound absolutely wonderful) however the policy on seeking to have an editor banned for disruptive editing (wp:DDE; ) clearly states
At all times, stay civil, and avoid engaging in multiple reverts yourself.
I extremely dislike having to be honest in this instance but everyone other than myself was reverting like a fiend.
Also, (same policy, wp:DDE again)
Tendentious editor continues reverting.
I have reverted exactly one edit in my entire time on Wikipedia and as explained above and/or elsewhere that was because my edit was reverted in the middle of making it. (Obviously, it was a two part edit).
Additionally, (still from the same policy, wp:DDE)
Assuming that it's one editor against many at this point, continue reverting the tendentious editor. If s/he exceeds three reverts in a 24-hour period, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (but be careful you don't do excessive reverts yourself!).
Please see above. I'm just going to say pretty much everything that policy states was ignored and leave it at that. Please feel free to refute me and I will throw more quotes at you. - SalamanderwithCouscous20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.
Placeholder edit
So I dont get deleted for inactivity while I re think what it is what it is Im trying to get out of college and or Wikipedia before I try it again.
Thanks, whoever killed my cat. R.I.P. Felix. (Felix the second, bit of a recurring theme, perhaps? Whatd you inject him with, leuprorelin?) Any thoughts on keeping 'holiday' carolers out of my house, if that is who killed him. He was only really sick for a couple of weeks, so he didn't suffer too long. But whatever starved him, that is really scary. If theyre doing that to people man that is bad news. And this is the second cat of mine Ive had (her? them? do that to?) happen to. Actually the last one first they slit his belly open and left him in the dirt of the driveway, but I digress. Had that (or similar) happen to a couple dogs before that, coincidentally enough. - SalamanderwithCouscous06:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reverts
Incidentally, I am tempted to revert/reintroduce the 'archived' 'discussions,' as no discussion whatsoever had begun, much less been 'resolved.' If I would be only harming myself and hurting my case by doing this, now is the time to let me know. - SalamanderwithCouscous07:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
test
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).
Hello, and thanks for taking the time to consider my request. Not (yet) for unblock per se, but would like to know if anyone would consider offering some thoughts on (1) reducing me from indef to 99 years and (2) feelings on restoring my access to talk pages and [my own] sand boxes, given zero complaints have been made about my activity on any of those. Lastly, (2)(b), with access to people's talk pages I could ask people looking to adopt if they are interested, in which case all my edits would be vetted and none of the issues leading to the block should apply, no? Thanks again, and have a great spring. Lastly, if anyone has figured out a way to stop 'people' killing our cats as a result of and/or in retaliation for editing wikipedia, please let me know. I concede it could just be a coincidence, not to get all tin hat foily. Also if you could revert the vandalism to my user page Id appreciate it. Lastly, Id ask if its all right to ping you on your talk page if I dont hear from you in a week, but a quick glimpse over my edits should show I am well acquainted with the light and sound problem, not to mention sympathetic. I have less sympathy for people killing cats (or pets in general), but thats really neither here nor there, now is it. Thanks - SalamanderwithCouscous07:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Blocks come in two flavors: with or without access to your talk page. The former is intended for constructive unblock requests, not for use as a personal blog. If you wish to make a proper unblock request, do so. Continuing your recent activity will cause your talk page privileges to be revoked. Favonian (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (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.
- My personal blog is offline but thanks for the warning. Just trying to get the block changed from an indef to 99 years or less, as I am am pretty sure these are some other flavors blocks come in. indef for a first offense seems a little steep to me. I was also under the understanding only mainspace access could be revoked, or access blocked to only specific articles. An indefinite block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead but I realize I have two months left for the 6 months I thought I saw were recommended for waiting to ask to be unblocked. Lastly,
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
WP:AAB says "An indefinite block means the blocking administrator did not set a time limit on the block. The user needs to discuss the matter with an administrator before any unblock." How am I supposed to do that without using my talk page, for example if Favonian or anyone else revokes my talk page access, accusing me of using it as a 'personal blog.' Thank you.
You currently still have access to your talkpage, and can use it to appeal the block. If the talkpage access is revoked - as is likely if you continue asking questions like this instead of actually addressing the block itself - then UTRS is available as a final level of appeal. Yunshui雲水11:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock sand box and user page access only, per [[3]]
I seem to remember reading something to the effect that only the blocking admin may consider and respond to unblock requests. Who are all these other people. Thank you for your attention to this matter - - SalamanderwithCouscous20:22, 12 November 2020 (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).
No infractions for 3 (three) years and very many other reasons which would fill a great very many pages, many of which are already viewable elsewhere and I would be happy to provide again if necessary, if in a very disjointed and disorganized manner. In addition, I would be content to be granted access to my sandbox and user page only and work my way up from there. Thanks - - SalamanderwithCouscous12:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It's not sufficient simply to wait, you need to address the disruptive editing that lead to your original block. You can see that discussion here. It's likely this is considered a community ban, meaning you need to follow the process outlined at WP:UNBAN in order to have this lifted. That is, no individual admin may lift the block, you need community consensus. I will note that I see no evidence of block evasion (thanks, this will count in your favour). Yamla (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2020 (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.
UTRS appeal #37238 has been declined. User is banned from UTRS for six months.
Welp, I'm afraid that was completely incoherent and made not a single mention of what would be needed to consider unblocking. You would need to describe how your editing was unconstructive and you need to describe how you would edit differently. Your bizarre ramblings about the blocking admin, or whatever that was, clearly indicate the inadvisability of unblocking you. You are therefore banned from UTRS for six months.
As you at the time of this writing have access to your talk page, your best option is to present a concise and coherent request on your talk page that can be carried to WP:AN. Please be advised there is a line ahead of you for that. Please be advised that you will have one try and one try only. Further bizarreness or attacks on the blocking admin or incoherentness will result in you losing talk page access. You must describe what you did wrong and what you would do right. --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
