User talk:Pitchlumin
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Pitchlumin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not intellectually damage the page I added an edit to. I did cite my edit with what is academically considered a valid government source. I do apologize if I did not add this citation correctly. If this is why I got blocked, could I please be shown how to add the citation properly so that everything is format on the "Abiogenesis" page? Thank you and again sorry for a misplaced citation. I was adding the information to the wiki page to help it more accurately represent the literature.Pitchlumin (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not address your connection to Pitchlumins. Yamla (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2023 (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.
Pitchlumin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
in reply to you, I made the same change but I was also still wrongly treated. I did swap to this name because this streamlines the info better, but on lumins I did make the change, it was reversed. I was told I need to cite my source. I changed it back and cited my source to help update the page. It was changed back with no sources cited to update from the source I provided. That person who is editing for science needs to know you need to have data to back claims. Abiogenesis is without observation, so it is believed, and thus belongs to the group of beliefs of origin. Nothing wrong with that, as there are many thousands of origin beliefs, if not more. If you would like to provide a source ousting the one I provided please feel free to provide the observation of nonlife becoming alive.
Decline reason:
I am beginning to think we have a competence issue here. Your unblock request still does not address the allegation of sock puppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2023 (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.
Pitchlumin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
replying to you, sock puppetry was not why I was blocked. My making an account more inline with my other accounts is something I have admitted on my end. I could go back and make this post on lumins if you would like, but this change is unfair. There is nothing I can not comprehend. Did you read the citation I provided? It says that no one has ever observed a cell form "de novo", which means from nothing. That makes the change I made accurate, going by a source that the government endorses. I also requested that if you haves source that is credible to your standards and they have data that refutes our current understanding, then please provide it.
Origin beliefs tend to have a supernatural force or miraculous event to describe origin. An event of nonlife becoming life defies every single observation we have ever made in a lab, or in nature itself. Something that has never been seen, that would be miraculous by odds if it happened, is currently believed to have happened, but currently has no more tangibility than a Creator making everything. Both have zero scientific support. This is why "other" belongs where inserted. It is a belief, like the other origin ideas. Please refute the source with another source, or could you or I make the change back to including "other". It is just one cited word that increases the accuracy and credibility of wiki.
Decline reason:
"sock puppetry was not why I was blocked." Yes it is. That's what a checkuser block means. Your other account has been blocked since last November; you should not have created another account in June to get around that block. You'll need to request unblock on your original account. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:01, 5 July 2023 (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.
Pitchlumin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
can I just not be blocked on this account? This is now my main account. I was still blocked unfairly on my old account because the situation is still the same. I provided a source for my edit, showing that the change is accurate. Someone else changed the page back, without citing a source to do so. Is that not wrong to make changes without citing? If I had made changes without citing, and was vandalizing other pages and whatnot, then ok yes, but I was correcting a page, which is something people do all the time. What happened to the people who made the change to my edit, without citations and sources??
Decline reason:
No, you may not be unblocked on this account - you still have access to your other account, which is only blocked from one single page. You can use that one to make edits you want to, except for at one article; you can appeal the partial block over there, too, although I doubt whether it will be granted since you were edit warring at the article. Here's a hint - if your edit gets reverted, don't reinstate it (regardless of whether you think it was right), start a thread on the article's talk page to discuss it with other users. Now, I am revoking your talk page access here, because you are not going to be unblocked on this account while you still have access to your original one. Girth Summit (blether) 13:32, 20 July 2023 (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.
if you do not unblock me, as I was denied unblocking on Pitchlumins, could you at least make the change to reflect accuracy? Me being able to post or not does not change the fact that the edit made is correct. Changes were made to this page to remove "other", making this page misaligned with all scientific observational data, and government-approved, accredited citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchlumin (talk • contribs)