User talk:27.96.194.9

October 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And what of the personal attacks directed towards me by said editor? 27.96.194.9 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your block is related to your conduct, not the other user's. Given that there have been not only personal attacks but also legal threats from this IP, any unblock request must be focused solely on your conduct and how you will edit cooperatively if unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Stating matters regarding the definition of defamation is not a direct threat of anything. That's a very large stretch to assume.

High profile Wikipedia user basically slanders an IP user when it's been proven to a large extent what I've added is factually correct.

Wikipedia sides with high profile Wikipedian... Typical...

This is why I don't bother with this place...

As to the issue with synth there is no synth, there's just ignorance on the other end.

The original version of this article had an Oxford dictionary definition which was largely problematic saying this is nothing more than a derogatory term.

There is longstanding evidence of which I've provided a significant amount of stating fairly explicitly otherwise.

On the other hand, the other user has stated multiple falsehoods and complained about synth under an issue I'm not sure they have any credible reason to be editing in as a music producer and with not a lot on top of that to show their credibility to be editing in that space.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I will out myself if I want, I will also refrain from posting pure falsehoods, nor will I be involved in petty character assassinations that the other editor is seemingly proud of engaging in.

I'm not asking to be unblocked what I am asking is for the same sanctions to be applied to quite obviously nebulous claims applied to me and blowhard rhetoric.

I didn't post that CNN article here, and in spite of multiple claims the ideology of AWM voters is established in all of the citations I've provided.

That being the case I only ask that the same sanctions be applied equally.

It's quite clear from the start to the beginning there was some quite bellicose grandstanding going on and factual inaccuracies thrown at me. Multiple attempts to silence me in various ways before I responded.

The appropriate response here is DARVO deny, attack, reverse roles, play victim, switch roles with actual underlying offender.

The initial intent was to silence me as an editor to begin with.

Cool I responded, I don't even care about that at this point, what I care about is apply things equally, after seeing this kind of abuse one time to many in my life, I will respond. The consequences here don't phase me so much as big headed people getting exactly what they want.

27.96.194.9 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

---