User talk:Morphenniel

Hi, I am "Morphenniel", and this is my talk page. Please leave me a message if you want to discuss something.

South Shore Line

Thanks for cleaning up the CERA reference. One minor thing: South Shore Line already uses Harvard-style short references (e.g. Middleton), so the CERA reference should too. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Morphenniel. You have new messages at SJ Morg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re AN/I

Hi again Morphenniel. Just letting you know that I've closed the AN/I thread as you're refusing to comment there. This is unfortunate, as it means our only path forward is the warn→block progression. Please note that ignoring community input, and failing to engage in consensus building, are considered to be blockable disruptive editing. Furthermore, please note that labeling good faith edits as vandalism, or implying that any good faith editor should not be allowed to edit, are personal attacks. Please adjust your behavior in accordance with the complaints about your editing and we will have no issues. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 00:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failed attempt to login to my account

Unlucky my son. You need to get up much earlier in the day to catch me out. Morphenniel (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of other editors.

Per this this edit. The only place that you are permitted to make sock allegations is at WP:SPI where you must provide supporting evidence. Otherwise do not make unsupported and false allegations elsewhere.

And, as someone else, noted, the source says 750 volts, so do not make unreferenced changes to an article. That is vandalism. TheVicarsCat (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly who you are. I shall be making contact with other editors to address this matter. Morphenniel (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't think that you do. Since you have made another sock allegation, I shall reproduce this warning from the admins to another user who did the same thing (in respect of someone else).

"Make accusations of sockpuppetry at SPI with your evidence, or not at all. You should never directly accuse someone of sockpuppetry like that. If you're wrong, you're personally attacking innocent editors with false accusations. If you're right, you're letting socks know that they need to be more discreet in order to avoid detection, while failing to actually do anything about it. Either way, it's disruptive." (Posted by the admin 'Swarm').

TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Morphenniel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

train deletions

I'm not sure what's going on with you and Markvs88, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Please take the high road. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markvs88 is simply going through articles looking for anything that is un-cited and deleting it. I am doing the same. Get over it already. Morphenniel (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not appropriate. Please use Template:citation needed instead. Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to Markvs8. Morphenniel (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One user's behavior doesn't make copying it okay. I am very close to involving an administrator in this situation. Please relax on the reverting. Thank you. –Daybeers (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please report me on the Admins page. It will make for an entertaining read. My sins are nothing compared to what Markvs8 are. "Go ahead. Make my day."Morphenniel (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of escalating this, I agree with Morphenniel here. If all of these outside actors want to take this to admins, go for it. Markvs88 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise at Alternator. When you start using edit summaries like "Go ahead. Make my day.", you're clearly not interested in doing anything constructive, just being disruptive. A view reinforced by reading your comments here. I'm too busy to file anything at ANI, but if anyone else does, please let me know. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

If you're feelinq queasy because you haven't seen a little blue number for a paragraph or two, may I suggest the {{Citation needed}} template instead of ripping up the text, omitting key information and disrupting the never too smooth flow of articles? I know it's way too much trouble to look up references and add them yourself, but if you put a template on it, some day some keener will fill it in. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from an editor with your background, that's "the pot calling the kettle black". Every edit I do I justify with an edit summary that points to the relevant Wikipedia policies. I don't care that you dislike my edits, but I am compliant with policies. If you're feeling upset, then I suggest you direct your energy to getting the policy changed. Whilst your doing that, why don't you also try and get the policy that allows un-registered editors to edit articles. Like you, I also spend a lot of time reverting the edits from vandals, or correcting wrong edits by well intention editors. When you think about it, we are actually not that different. Maybe you just don't like seeing your reflection in a mirror? - Morphenniel (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, as you did at Severn Tunnel Junction railway station, you may be blocked from editing. Your disruptive edits have now crossed over into obvious stalking and hounding of individual editors. This is not acceptable behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive_tag_team_doing_bulk_section_deletions_against_numerous_other_editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do this again, I will oversight block you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.

This block is based on the combative attitudes you have expressed in the discussion at ANI and here on your talk page. Please return to editing at the end of your block with a positive collaborative attitude and a willingness to improve the encyclopedia by adding references or tagging unreferenced content, instead of engaging in a spree of mass deletion of unreferenced paragraphs. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my recent edits at Field's metal for an example of how you should conduct yourself going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I regret my actions. I had tried very hard to be a better editor. My interaction with Markvs88 just flipped me. I knew that what I was doing was wrong, but I was a puppet. Markvs88 pushed my buttons and I took the bait. It was stupid, and unnecessary. I had tried very hard to avoid interactions, and had focused on creating new references and improving references. I really do believe that Wikipedia is a great idea, and I wanted to be a part of it. I have known for a long time that I just needed to be a low-level contributor. Revert vandalism. Provide references. Nothing contentious. My interaction with Markvs88 just threw me. He was so bold and un-apologetic. I disliked his viewpoint, but he was like a drug. He was addictive. I followed his example, and it felt good. I got too carried away, and it was wrong. I sincerely apologize to Andy Dingley and WTShymanksi. I am not looking for the block to be removed, but I just want people to understand my actions. I was wrong, and I regret it. One more thing .. I read with amusement that User:Sockweb was part of my sock army. Sorry folks, but it ain't me. I confess to Vincent Poloz and Zijn Altjid Aanwezig, but Sockweb is nothing of my creation. I am a little upset about Vincent Poloz being blocked ... he didn't do any bad edits. And besides, how can you block anyone with the name Vincent, it is not kosher!! All I want you to know is that I confess to being disruptive, but I know that I am a better editor. Please look a little further back and I trust that you will see the real editor. I created templates for book references, improved referencing of articles and did my bit for reverting vandalism. If I had not come across Markvs88 then I would have continued to be a contributing editor. I accept a block, but I am better than an indef block. Please review my edit history.

Decline reason:

Wait. You outed another person here and then phoned that editor at home? It's hard to imagine the community ever trusting you again. There's certainly no chance we'll unblock you at this point. Your best hope, though it's a slim one, is to wait six months with zero further edits and zero further sockpuppetry, then apply under WP:SO and explain to the community why we should trust you again. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 25 December 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.

Morphenniel, you misunderstood what you read. I clearly said that sockweb (talk · contribs · count) is unrelated to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We had a minor dispute over disruptive editing which went to ANI. Then you really went for it: repeatedly OUTING, phoning me at home. But now, a couple of days later, you're "reformed". No, I just don't believe this. I can't see any circumstance in which case the project here would benefit by you returning. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:0-905878-06-X" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:0-905878-06-X. Since you had some involvement with the Template:0-905878-06-X redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]