User talk:Abnormallylong

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Macropenis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 11:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ll

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked unfairly as I wasn't warring with another editor, in fact I just created this article and have been editing it today, another editor came in and made some great formatting changes and added some text, i was in the middle of editing and i think the system got confused with the two edits at the same time. Regardless, I would like to add more citations and a picture, may I do so and be unblocked? Abnormallylong (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear edit warring, plus block evasion Yamla (talk) 13:01, 1 October 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.

Support unblock

I support an unblock. Ablong was making constructive edits and he seems to have a keen ability for adding reputable sources. All in all, his style seems to indicate he is an asset to Wikipedia as a useful content creator. Can we (a) stop punishing content creators and (b) stop bullying newcomers? Thank you. 79.67.88.242 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike out comments from block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know what block evasion is, frankly this is ridiculous as I was just trying to add reputable content. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnormallylong (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

i don't know what block evasion is, frankly this is ridiculous as I was just trying to add reputable content Abnormallylong (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See here: WP:Block evasion. You are obviously connected to the person using a certain IP for anonymous editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:58, 1 October 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.

Not only do you need to address the block evasion, but you also need to address the underlying reason for your block, the edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

79.67.88.242 is not me an it is ridiculous to think so, in fact I was banned for "warring" with that user, which is stupid because we were both trying to constructively edit an article. So why would I get banned for fighting with myself if that was in fact me, which it is not. please explain your flawed logic.

You were editing in concert with the IP; I don't see any instances where you reverted the IP's edits or vice versa. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly what I said in the initial unblock request, I believe we were both editing the article at the same time and the system flagged us, but we were both genuinely trying to edit the article for the greater good and with no ill intent.

I see three clear reverts from you.[1][2][3] The fourth revert, which I suspect triggered your block, was by the IP.[4] Given the editing in concert, I see how it certainly appears to be a sockpuppetry situation. The IP chiming in here to request an unblock certainly makes that appearance stronger. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused with what was happening as I was in the middle of editing when I was getting the error messages. I understand your rules, but this really is a misunderstanding.

Then I assume you understand why it looks, to us, like you were editing while logged out in an attempt to conceal your identity and avoid the warnings you'd gotten about edit warring? —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do understand, but why would I be banned for edit warring with myself? It just doesn't make sense, I will just patiently await the expiration of the ban. I am just a new user and don't know all the intricacies of the site, this whole ordeal is not the best way to initiate myself with the site!

It wasn't for edit warring with yourself; it was for reverting the edit by Hayman30. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, well again, I am sorry, I wasn't trying to be malicious, only constructive, thanks for showing me the ropes.

Log out

Administrators apparently think that you and I are the same person. One way we could prove that I am not your sock is by you editing while logged out, showing we have different I.P addresses. Would you be willing to log out and type anything random on your userpage, thereby demonstrating our innocence? 79.67.88.242 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would not prove anything. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Macropenis— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what do you define as not constructive, i created a well referenced and useful article for a medical condition that was not adequately described on wikipedia. How is this any less than constructive? Please explain your reasoning.

User:Abnormallylong/Macropenis

I recommend you start off creating the User:Abnormallylong/Macropenis page. That way, you can refine until it is to a standard wherein it will be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. I will help you to develop it. I recommend copy-pasting all the macropenis content to that page, then subsequently other editors will have the time to contribute before deletionists get their hands on it. Then later on it can be transferred to a Wikipedia article. 88.104.33.149 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]