Pperrin uk
Welcome edit
|
April 2019 edit
Hello, I'm DanielRigal. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gavin Esler seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you want to add the content again using neutral language and avoiding terms that are not used in the reference material then you can. DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
You're finished here edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)- Nothing you've suggested at Talk:QAnon has been an improvement. The title of your post calls for false balance between reality and delusion, and the rest of your posts have been you ignoring everyone's explanations as to why that's not happening, scrambling your attempts at a point to try and come across as a having new arguments, and now hypocritically misapplying sites standards that should have gotten you to shut up a long time ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Pperrin uk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have politely raised some points on a talk page - a couple of editors don't seem to understand the point I am raising, but rather then discussing it (or leaving to others who may be more circumspect than themselves) have chosen to block me from Wikipedia -- I have not 'seriously breached' any Wikipedia guideline - it seems I have just upset a particular editor by not 'shutting up' when they said I should, and they have seriously abused their power to 'punish' me... Pperrin uk (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. As you do not understand the disruptive nature of your edits and have chosen instead to cast aspersions and blame others, it would be unwise to unblock you-- you would simly continue to cause disruuption. Please consider your actions and edits, your inability to function collaboratively, and review the GAB beore again requesting unblock Thanks, and Happy Holidays.-- Deepfriedokra 02:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
Pperrin uk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block was not about 'edits' it was about disagreeing with another editor on a talk page. No abuse etc - just discussing a difference of opinion which the other editor wanted to shut down (for whatever reason...)
Decline reason:
The block is about your persistent assertion that Wikipedia treat what are reliably stated to be nonsensical conspiracy theories as something to be taken seriously, or to be stated in such a way that the encyclopedia lends credibility to nonsense, which is contrary to the encyclopedia's purpose. Your conduct doesn't provide confidence that you won't promote fringe theories through commission or omission, and your comments here indicate that you will keep disrupting talkpages to ague in favor of obfuscation, while blaming other editors for confronting this behavior. A successful unblock request will involve examination of your own behavior. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
Pperrin uk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was discussing an article on its talk page - not editing a public article. The discussion was polite, courteous etc... what was the reason (as per Wikipedia's terms) for a block? Clearly not about editing public articles (as there was no edit)... it seems it was just to end a discussion that one editor felt (s)he had no response to... Pperrin uk (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked for not being here to write an encyclopedia. Because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, using Wikipedia to advance conspiracy theories is counter to our purpose. To prevent further time-wasting on this topic, your talk page access has been revoked. If you decide that you're interested in following what reliable sources say, you can appeal via WP:UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
unblock discussion edit
Recommend that TPA be removed. User continues to argue tendentiously and either cannot or will not understand the disruptive nature of their edits.-- Deepfriedokra 03:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)