September 2022

edit
 
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism.
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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 
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).

2601:246:C700:FD:A031:B758:507:3925 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Drmies, we worked together in earlier days when I edited as a faculty member of the Big Ten University. I still edit from time to time anonymously here. Today I noted that the physics glossary was largely without citations, and that the sources were a mess, many lacking specific aspects of information, including page numbers. I had spent an hour getting the sources in order, and then posting an article tag calling reader attention to the fact that most of the definitions were from Wikipedia editors, rather than sources. Driven by Huggle, a thus-serving editor reverted all of my work. You then came on and supported that reversion. As well, it appears that you blocked one of my work URLs. I will admit the mistake of jumping the gun, and not waiting for the original blocking editor to reconsider his reversion. (You have seen my message to that editor on their Talk page, so I will not append it.) Finally, I take umbrage with the descriptrion "edit warring, POV editing, trolling, POINTy tagging, etc." as an overstatement. I admit the mistake of jumping the gun, and not leaaving them time to revert their own reversion. There was no POV editing at that article, on my part. (It is simply true that the article repeatedly violates WP:VER, no? That none of the content is sky-is-blue obvious? That all entries require sources, yes?) And it is not trolling to contact a reverting editor, and engage them, is it—or has the encyclopedia changed in the last few years? And finally, yes—when 90% of an article violates WP:VER, it calls for pointed reader warnings. But even there, I only called attention at the head, and the first page of enties—not all the way down—and then called specific attention to books needing pages, to citations for physics definitions taken from the NYT, etc. That is to say, I made clear what needed to be addressed by next editors following. How does all of this constitute vandalism, and not "editing boldly"? So, I would ask you to review this intervention on your part, with a strong suggestion that you return my original editing work as being in support of a better encyclopedia—and likewise, that you unblock the URL, so that when I do have occasion to edit, in my spare time around my start-up work, that I can still contribute. I will commit, of course, to not jumping the gun, again. Once again, the original article repeatedly violated WP:VERIFY. Maintaining the Huggle-driven reversion returns that content, absent the source corrections, and absent the reader warnings. I think that is a disservice to the encyclopedia. A former colleague. 2601:246:C700:FD:A031:B758:507:3925 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; block has expired. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 8 October 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.