Reference878
March 2022 edit
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
CU block edit
Admins, please see this diff for some background, as well as User talk:Odinson878. I pondered a temporary block, but then I saw the extensive commentary on that user talk page, and the uncollegial attitude displayed by the editor; if this editor wishes to be unblocked, it will require a serious attitude change, because they seem to be an inveterate edit warrior and incapable of collaborative editing. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Reference878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1st:Odinson878 is deleted from my phone s bookmarks, so i cant acess it, hence this new account. 2nd: I didn't put anything unresourceful, I used the article references to add some more information in the abilities section,I don't think it is wrong to put necessary information, especially when it is supported by the same article,and if multiple people rejected my edits, then how does that make their claims valid ? For Example:Thor overpowering infinite gravity is a legit feat done by Thor in Thor(1966):Link: https://qphs.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-859664cf723fd48dfd2b9683b7306001-lq and it isn't a quora image; it's from the official marvel comic, I only used the image link from quora not the actual sourced image.so why are they vandalising this accurate feat.contributing to the article?? Didn't I contribute by providing more feats and sources,I literally added five new references, so why am I being banned? Just because five people reject official marvel sources that doesn't mean they are true. 3rd: I don't add references in the article,as most of the references are already present in the article itself, I only add a few words to describe it, nothing more.it isn't a drastic change in any way. For eg- adding godblast to the abilities section in the info box, the information about godblast is already present in the article,then why can't we add it in the abilites section.This just seems unfair.Reference878 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Really, at this point, I think the socking thing is the least reason for your block. You may indeed have lost the phone tab for your first account—but you should have disclosed that the minute you opened this one. Honesty and openness count.
I think this is now clearly more of a competence block, and given that and the history at the other account I would very strongly advise an admin reviewing any further request for unblock you make to not only deny it but revoke your talk page access if that request is more of the same old song. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2022 (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.
Reference878 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
"Incapable of collaborative editing" I don't see other Wikipedia editors helping me out by adding my valid sources into the article. This truly sounds like hypocrisy. I didn't add anything wrong, just some extra information, sourced by marvel, which is extremely hard to find, and for that reason I was banned, for my deleted Odinson878 account. I don't really understand what's your point Reference878 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly didn't get the point of what I said to you on BOZ's talk page. Instead, you are still expecting everyone to put up with your inability to cite sources. I was a bit unsure about Drmies indef block, right up until I read that. Instead of doing what everyone is telling you to do, you have Instead accused them of "vandalising" and "hypocrisy". Unfortunately, your words in appealing this block have basically just confirmed that it was the right thing to do.
- You can still be unblocked, but I'd suggest that you stop digging and start trying to change your attitude. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 22:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- You are not blocked for abuse of multiple accounts; you are blocked because on multiple accounts you've proven yourself to be incapable of editing according to our guidelines. In terms of editing, you seem to think that dumping a bunch of details, either unverified or with primary sourcing (at best), is article improvement--it is not, and when you do that first with Thor19612021, twice, and a few hours later you do it with Odinson878, and you still don't understand it's wrong so you do it step by step with Reference878, and in between you do it without logging in, then at some point everyone's patience is worn out. And then--what you're adding to an already terrible article just makes it worse. You are better off trying your godblast powers on Wikia. Because an unblock request in which you essentially argue that it's everyone else's fault is not going to convince anyone. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
" you seem to think that dumping a bunch of details, either unverified or with primary sourcing (at best), is article improvement" 𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙪𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙,𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨, 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣'𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙪𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙--it is not, and when you do that first with 𝙏𝙝𝙤𝙧19612021(𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙢𝙮 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩), twice, and a few hours later you do it with 𝙊𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙤𝙣878(𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚,𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣𝙩 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙢𝙮 𝙪𝙣𝙗𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙠 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝙪𝙥 𝙬𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙮𝙥𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙮 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩) and you still don't understand it's wrong so you do it step by step with Reference878, and in between you do it without logging in, then at some point everyone's patience is 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩(𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙤𝙣878 , 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣'𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝 6, 𝙮𝙚𝙨! 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩?𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 " Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions. 𝙍𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙞𝙭𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙,𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩.𝙞 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣'𝙩 𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨,𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙙.𝙞 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙚
https://qphs.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-859664cf723fd48dfd2b9683b7306001-lq 𝘿𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙚𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙠 𝙞𝙩? 𝙉𝙤𝙥𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙙,𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙙! 𝙒𝙝𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙙,𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙣'𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙙 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚,𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜,𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩'𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩.𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙄 𝙖𝙙𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 .Reference878 (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)