User talk:Blanes tree

Welcome!

Hello, Blanes tree, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Qflib (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to research before you edit

Some of the edits you have made on my articles are fair. I agree with many of them. I have been too liberal with the use of some sources. We can agree on that.

But you need to actually research these people before making edits. You have no awareness of who these people are and what they do. If you did any research on Cameron Mason you would find that he was a well-known YouTuber before being a well-known bike racer. If this article was from 4 years ago, the article would be more about his YouTube than his cycling. This is reflected in the new reference I used for this passage (the link to his YouTube is no longer the reference for him being a content creator).

I am happy to debate on edits. In many cases you have made valid points. This one is plainly unresearched, and unlike your other edits which I will honour, this once I will continue to revert. Theobrad (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're not being WP:NICE? Blanes tree (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Hounding discussion Theobrad (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source/notability tags

I just saw that you added primary source and notability tags to an article I recently expanded, on the attorney Melvin Wulf. I'm a new Wiki editor and was wondering if you could talk me through your decision to add these tags, so I can better understand what to do or not to do in the future. Thanks! Zelda Zanders (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I placed the tag because the page is mostly cited to sources close to or published by the subject. Please do not remove the tag until you have address this issue.Blanes tree (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the sources you're referring to? I'm only aware of two: the Rutgers Oral History Archive interview conducted by Nicholas Molnar (previously cited 4 times, now only 2) and Wulf's article about Philip Agee, cited one time. Are there other sources you have concerns over? Zelda Zanders (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probaly best if you ask your mentoor or ask about it at the TreeHouse Blanes tree (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that! However, since you added the tag, I'd also love to understand your thinking about it. Thanks so much! Zelda Zanders (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Blanes tree (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering which sources prompted you to add the "primary source" tag. Zelda Zanders (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelda Zanders I can't answer for Blanes_tree's view, but the Supreme Court cases are primary sources. They can be used per WP:PRIMARYSOURCES to validate uncontroversial facts, but secondary sources are preferred. The oral history interview is both primary and non-independent and again should be used sparingly to validate uncontroversial facts about the subject. I haven't reviewed closely to see if this is the case. Either way, you have a good range of secondary sources on Wulf and I think this is a terrific article, especially for a newcomer! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 Thank you for your advice and positive feedback! It hadn't even occurred to me that the court cases are primary sources, but that makes total sense. Typically I only use a case as a citation when summarizing the case itself (since the Justia listings are usually the most thorough—or only—summaries, particularly for lesser-known cases that didn't receive other reporting). Is this context, is it acceptable to rely on so many primary sources, or should I still try to swap those citations out? Understood re: the oral history.

Thank you again for your help! Zelda Zanders (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about WP:HOUNDING, other issues

Hi there, Blanes_tree. After seeing your (apparent) mistake of interpreting an editor's response in the W. David Marx AfD, I took a closer look at your edit history.

I am concerned that your edit history shows an inordinately heavy focus on @Theobrad's contributions; in addition to targeting their edits on other pages, you have either nominated for deletion or deleted extensive passages from every single article the user has created. Focusing on a single user's work this way can often be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING, which is a form of harassment. I don't think all of your edits are off-base, but I do think several of them are non-constructive, particularly in the way you describe them. For example, you remove the word "eponymous" and describe it as "Horrible disregard for Wikipedia's encyclopaedic tone here," which is an overreaction in tone and substance. (Eponymous is a perfectly encyclopedic word that just means something is named after someone or something else.) On Cameron Mason, you removed a reliably sourced statement with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for YouTubers to plug their channels," even though the edit you objected to did not include a link to the subject's YouTube channel and there was no evidence that Mason was adding the text himself.

I am concerned about some of your other edits, as well. On Melvin Wulf, you added a notability tag, even though the article clearly asserts notability with adequate sourcing to clear WP:GNG. (And indeed, anyone who receives a New York Times obit is generally going to be found notable.) If you're interested in learning more about how your fellow editors interpret the notability guidelines, spending time as an observer or participant in AfD discussions will give you a good sense for this.

You've only been here a few months, but you seem to have a positive desire to make sure Wikipedia content is not promotional. This is great! I just want to be sure you are aware of the policy on WP:HOUNDING in case you were not aware of it, and to invite you to be a little less dogmatic in how you engage with your fellow volunteers. Yes, be WP:BOLD, but also be aware this is a collaborative project, and we are all WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia together. Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reverting problematic edits by Blanes_tree on the VFS Global article, he likewise engaged in WP:HOUNDING me as well. He wrote a comment on The Great Gatsby directing me to "rewrite" that Featured Article.

Fascinatingly, Blanes_tree claims in his recent edit on The Great Gatsby's Talk Page to be a friend of the author and his wife. F. Scott Fitzgerald (whom he misidentifies as "Frank") died in 1940, and Zelda Fitzgerald died in 1948. He would need to be nearly 100 years old for this claim to be true. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH, I shall take him at his word. I look forward to hearing his recollections of drinking with F. Scott Fitzgerald and fishing with Ernest Hemingway. — Flask (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I accept that my behaviour on this platform has fallen below the threshold. I shouldn't be hounding Theobrad or User:Zelda Zanders. If I do it again, which I won't then you should definitely report me to whoever is in charge here.Blanes tree (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology. I don't think each individual issue was intended to be Hounding but the result of the accumulative action ended up being so. Additionally I do think your opinion-based edits on The Great Gatsby page were both completely out of ordered and just your opinions instead of a constructive discussion of ideas - especially as you cited no information or literary criticism to support your "claims". Theobrad (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair and I can't apologise enough for my behaviour. I'm still learning the ropes and finding my way around. I think I have found the appropriate message board for you to report your concerns about me to. Would you like me to share the link with you?Blanes tree (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this response. Glad to see a conversation was able to resolve a problem before higher levels of dispute resolution are needed. W/r/t Flask's comment, please remember to respond to users' messages on article talk pages before reverting/redoing reverted edits. I'll leave the conversation here and see you around the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your compassion but I can't help but feel that my behaviour is really, really bad so maybe a you know what at the you know where is required here? Blanes tree (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the procedure. However, I think this remaining on your Talk page is enough of a reminder to yourself to check yourself before making edits. And it will be helpful for other people to see this if you were to go after someone else's work again. Theobrad (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, but I do think you should escalate your concerns just in case I am tempted to edit any pages that you've started again. I'm a very impulsive person and I just can't help myself sometimes. You really should file an incident report. Blanes tree (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 @Theobrad After repeated warnings by other editors to cease WP:HOUNDING and promising not to do so again, Blanes tree nevertheless resumed targeting @Zelda Zanders today. — Flask (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He continued to do the same to me on the W. David Marx article yesterday. He clearly hasn't learned and the warning wasn't enough. Flask, if you know the correct way to report someone or to raise his behaviour to an admin I would highly support it Theobrad (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles R. Conn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up.Blanes tree (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

For others seeing this user's talk page, please take note of this discussion: Talk:GongU Madang#Tags. Think this user's tone, completely unprovoked, is inappropriate. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blanes tree, you invited an incident report above. I don't want to respond to WP:DRAMA, but your engagement with @104.232.119.107 is an example of what I warned about yesterday. Please don't WP:DRIVEBY tag pages; if you do tag, explain why proactively on the talk page and provide your reasons. This response was WP:UNCIVIL. You did not even address all the tags or respond to the editor's point about Korean sources. Then telling a fellow editor who asked for but has still not gotten an explanation for your edit that "we should both take some time out to cool off and come back to this after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed" suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to build this collaboratively. Moreover, this is the kind of unproductive/uncivil edit summary I warned about above. It's one thing to be WP:BOLD. It's another to disregard the norms of communication around here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm really sorry about my outburst earlier. I apologized to the IP in question and removed myself from the situation so that it wouldn't escalate and I've stopped editing the page. I also offered to help @Theobrad: drag my you know what to the you know where but for some reason he didn't want to go that far... Blanes tree (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stop this kind of engagement, you can stop now! Taking a break from a particular page doesn't mean continue the same practices on other pages with other editors. If you keep going like this, I expect there will be sanctions down the road. Good luck. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support Dclemens1971's concerns about your behaviour. We welcome all new editors to Wikipedia, so you are welcome here; and we understand that Wikipedia is a steep learning curve, so mistakes will occur. However, when people reach out to you, we do expect a polite and helpful response. Your responses to concerns about your tagging have not been polite or helpful. I strongly suggest that until you more clearly understand the use of tags, that you do not tag any more articles. I would strongly suggest that you do not tag any articles for at least three months. In addition, when someone contacts you about any aspect of your editing that you respond in a polite and neutral manner, explaining your actions clearly, preferably with links to appropriate and relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The action of doing this will prevent hard feelings and alienation, will assist the other user to understand what you are doing, and what Wikipedia is about, and will also allow you to reflect on your actions to see if they are compliant with consensus. All of us at times do things that we think are right, but when challenged, actually see that what we did was not in keeping with current consensus. SilkTork (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to take a look at @Theobrad's user page and edit history before jumping to their defence. Blanes tree (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blanes tree Talk:W. David Marx your reply here is going too far. I really do think you should take SilkTork's and Dclemens1971's advice.

I strongly recommend you do this: stop saying anything negative to everyone on Wiki. If someone's doing something bad, quietly ask someone else to take a look at the situation, but otherwise do not engage with them.

Being firm has its uses on Wikipedia, but I think you've missed the mark enough times in rapid succession that you shouldn't trust yourself to do it anymore. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I advised @Theobrad to take my you know what to the you know where but for some unbeknownst reason he didn't want to. So I put two and two together and thought that maybe their reluctance to escalate things has something to do with their partial COI disclosure on their's userpage, three incredibly promotional articles about living subjects with dubious claims to notability one of which included anecdotes about their analogue synthesizers and rock collection. SilkTork didn't say anything about tagging other user's talk pages so I've left a COI warning on their talk page and I also sent them some WikiLove in the form of chicken because who doesn't love chicken?Blanes tree (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also baked you a cake. Blanes tree (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the apology, your response to my suggestion shows that you don't understand why your messages are inappropriate and unhelpful. Nobody should have to report you to get you to stop acting like this. If you need to be reported, I can do it. Think about this more carefully. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to report me for exactly? Taking a break when you wanted to have a fight? Blanes tree (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for an attitude that seems incompatible with a collaborotive environment, namely: hounding other users, refusing to clearly explain yourself when asked politely, biting newcomers, needlessly escalating all of these issues, and finally, claiming that your personal friednship with persons who died 75 years ago overrides Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Be sure to address all of these points in any request for unblock..

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 ~~~~}}. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Just Step Sideways,

I am writing to sincerely apologize for my past actions and to request that my indefinite block be lifted. I fully acknowledge that my behavior was inappropriate and not in line with Wikipedia's standards for a collaborative environment. I have taken the time to reflect on my actions and understand the gravity of my mistakes. I would like to address each of the points raised in the block notice individually.

Firstly, I deeply regret any instances where I hounded other users. I understand that this behavior is not conducive to a supportive and collaborative editing community. I am committed to ensuring that all my future interactions with fellow editors are respectful and constructive.

Secondly, I apologize for my past refusal to clearly explain myself when asked politely. Effective communication is crucial in a collaborative environment, and I failed to uphold this standard. Moving forward, I will strive to be transparent and clear in all my communications, ensuring that I respond to inquiries in a polite and comprehensive manner.

Regarding the issue of biting newcomers, I am truly sorry for any negative experiences I may have caused new editors. Wikipedia thrives on the contributions of new members, and it is essential to welcome them warmly. I promise to be more patient and encouraging with newcomers, offering guidance and support rather than criticism.

I also recognize that my actions in needlessly escalating issues were counterproductive. In the future, I will prioritize de-escalation and seek amicable resolutions to conflicts. I will adhere to dispute resolution processes and avoid letting disagreements spiral into larger conflicts.

Furthermore, I understand that claiming my personal friendship with individuals who passed away 75 years ago does not override Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Reliable sourcing is a cornerstone of Wikipedia's credibility, and I am committed to strictly adhering to these policies in all my future edits.

To demonstrate my commitment to positive contributions, I plan to focus more on technical fixes such as infoboxes, tables, and citation templates. These areas allow me to contribute constructively without becoming embroiled in disputes over sourcing or notability. I believe this focus will help me rebuild trust within the community and show my dedication to improving Wikipedia.

Once again, I sincerely apologize for my past behavior and any disruption it caused. I am eager to make amends and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. I kindly ask for the opportunity to demonstrate my commitment to these changes and request that my block be lifted.

Thank you for considering my appeal.

Sincerely, Blanes tree (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not accept chatbot-generated unblock requests. GPTZero score: 100%. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:31, 5 August 2024 (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.

This looks very much like an AI/LLM generated response (and GPT Zero gives it a 100% positive). If so, you ought to remove this request and rewrite it in your own words. You're the one that is blocked from editing after all, not ChatGPT or a similar set of text projection algorithms, so it's not those algorithms that admins want to hear from. And you can see the consequences of using AI; it really kind of skipped over some things you were saying that were quite obviously false. If you want an admin to ever trust you to post again, you're going to need to be fully transparent and honest (and in your own words). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

As I have previously stated Wikipedia is vast so I am happy to stay out of User:Theobrad's way. They appear to have ceased editing anyway... I was on the wrong medication which I've sorted now and I'm willing to make constructive edits and not get involved with issues of notability or what Wikipedia is not. Yes it was silly of me to claim I was friends with F Scott Fitzgerald but I did so on a the GG's talk page and did not disrupt the article itself.Blanes tree (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address all the points raised in the stated reason for the block: "an attitude that seems incompatible with a collaborotive environment, namely: hounding other users, refusing to clearly explain yourself when asked politely, biting newcomers, needlessly escalating all of these issues, and finally, claiming that your personal friednship with persons who died 75 years ago overrides Wikipedia's sourcing policies." 331dot (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2024 (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.

Please place new posts at the bottom, to maintain chronological flow. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am happy to collaborate with other users in good faith. I removed information from the W. David Marx page that I felt was poorly sourced and unencyclopedic and user:theobrad took exception to this. They seemed to conflate authorship with wp:ownership when they posted a rather uncivil message on my talk page telling me I need to research before making edits. I then noticed that user:Theobrad had a partially declared COI on their user page. I say partially because while they've declared a COI they haven't declared which articles they have a COI with. In hindsight I should have raised the issue at the corresponding noticeboard but I wasn't getting much sleep at the time and wrongly believed that W. David Marx wasn't notable due to any potential secondary sourced being obfuscated by a plethora of primary sources.

I decided to leave him too it but I did notice that the page reviewer that approved the page had also approved a bunch of other articles that I felt had questionable notability. So I did a bit of editing on these articles and came up against more editors fervently defending pages that they clearly feel passionately about.

As for Great-Gatspygate yes, I was being facetious by claiming to know the author and his wife but user:Flask and I had already met in a different part of the encyclopedia and I thought it might help build rapport to discuss his favourite novel with them. Obviously, they didn't see it this way but I am autistic and this sort of thing happens a lot. I only came here to make friends and edit a few articles. I don't wish to disrupt things in any way.

Blanes tree (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am happy to collaborate with other users in good faith. I removed information from the [[W. David Marx]] page that I felt was poorly sourced and unencyclopedic and [[user:theobrad]] took exception to this. They seemed to conflate authorship with [[wp:ownership]] when they posted a rather uncivil message on my talk page telling me I need to research before making edits. I then noticed that [[user:Theobrad]] had a partially declared COI on their user page. I say partially because while they've declared a COI they haven't declared which articles they have a COI with. In hindsight I should have raised the issue at the corresponding noticeboard but I wasn't getting much sleep at the time and wrongly believed that W. David Marx wasn't notable due to any potential secondary sourced being obfuscated by a plethora of primary sources. 

I decided to leave him too it but I did notice that the page reviewer that approved the page had also approved a bunch of other articles that I felt had questionable notability. So I did a bit of editing on these articles and came up against more editors fervently defending pages that they clearly feel passionately about. 

As for Great-Gatspygate yes, I was being facetious by claiming to know the author and his wife but [[user:Flask]] and I had already met in a different part of the encyclopedia and I thought it might help build rapport to discuss his favourite novel with them. Obviously, they didn't see it this way but I am autistic and this sort of thing happens a lot. I only came here to make friends and edit a few articles. I don't wish to disrupt things in any way. 

 [[User:Blanes tree|Blanes tree]] ([[User talk:Blanes tree#top|talk]]) 11:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am happy to collaborate with other users in good faith. I removed information from the [[W. David Marx]] page that I felt was poorly sourced and unencyclopedic and [[user:theobrad]] took exception to this. They seemed to conflate authorship with [[wp:ownership]] when they posted a rather uncivil message on my talk page telling me I need to research before making edits. I then noticed that [[user:Theobrad]] had a partially declared COI on their user page. I say partially because while they've declared a COI they haven't declared which articles they have a COI with. In hindsight I should have raised the issue at the corresponding noticeboard but I wasn't getting much sleep at the time and wrongly believed that W. David Marx wasn't notable due to any potential secondary sourced being obfuscated by a plethora of primary sources. 

I decided to leave him too it but I did notice that the page reviewer that approved the page had also approved a bunch of other articles that I felt had questionable notability. So I did a bit of editing on these articles and came up against more editors fervently defending pages that they clearly feel passionately about. 

As for Great-Gatspygate yes, I was being facetious by claiming to know the author and his wife but [[user:Flask]] and I had already met in a different part of the encyclopedia and I thought it might help build rapport to discuss his favourite novel with them. Obviously, they didn't see it this way but I am autistic and this sort of thing happens a lot. I only came here to make friends and edit a few articles. I don't wish to disrupt things in any way. 

 [[User:Blanes tree|Blanes tree]] ([[User talk:Blanes tree#top|talk]]) 11:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am happy to collaborate with other users in good faith. I removed information from the [[W. David Marx]] page that I felt was poorly sourced and unencyclopedic and [[user:theobrad]] took exception to this. They seemed to conflate authorship with [[wp:ownership]] when they posted a rather uncivil message on my talk page telling me I need to research before making edits. I then noticed that [[user:Theobrad]] had a partially declared COI on their user page. I say partially because while they've declared a COI they haven't declared which articles they have a COI with. In hindsight I should have raised the issue at the corresponding noticeboard but I wasn't getting much sleep at the time and wrongly believed that W. David Marx wasn't notable due to any potential secondary sourced being obfuscated by a plethora of primary sources. 

I decided to leave him too it but I did notice that the page reviewer that approved the page had also approved a bunch of other articles that I felt had questionable notability. So I did a bit of editing on these articles and came up against more editors fervently defending pages that they clearly feel passionately about. 

As for Great-Gatspygate yes, I was being facetious by claiming to know the author and his wife but [[user:Flask]] and I had already met in a different part of the encyclopedia and I thought it might help build rapport to discuss his favourite novel with them. Obviously, they didn't see it this way but I am autistic and this sort of thing happens a lot. I only came here to make friends and edit a few articles. I don't wish to disrupt things in any way. 

 [[User:Blanes tree|Blanes tree]] ([[User talk:Blanes tree#top|talk]]) 11:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Comment. Just three days ago, another editor and I were tagged in an edit that included content subject to revision deletion. At this point, I do not believe this user has any capacity to engage productively in this community and I would ask any administrator reviewing this appeal not to accept it for the good of this user and of the broader community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]