User talk:Startrinity

Block evasion

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 18 February 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Made a single edit, which was well-sourced as a result of new source from local newspaper. Administrator with a seeming ax to grind violated policy in setting a block without due process, consensus, or any policy violation. Startrinity (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:37, 18 February 2022 (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.

You've neglected to address the obvious block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious only to you it seems. The local newspaper runs a story about a town being a speed trap city, and even cites your removal of the section of the article as a coverup. It was re-added with additional sources and you bring the years-old ax you seem to have against anyone who writes anything negative about the entire area and use it against me.Startrinity (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Big D, that is not going to fly. Thing is, if your content weren't so excessively written, and so poorly sourced, and if it didn't include silly content like "When calling the town's main phone number, the only options that callers are provided are to Press 1 to pay a traffic ticket, or Press 2 for all other calls", sourced to a blog--in other words, if your edit didn't so flagrantly violate all kinds of policies and guidelines, no one might have noticed. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then do what is typically done on this site...make a revision. Don't like what you see? Just block the controbutor. Startrinity (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here since 2011--you should know better than that. First of all, it was obviously you. Second, don't add crappy content and expect others to clean up for you. If you haven't learned in 11 years what our policies and guidelines say, then you really shouldn't be here. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]