User talk:Six and 7 eighths

Talk here:

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).

Six and 7 eighths (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

per "Help, I have been blocked" page. I thought I put references in pages where needed. I have been doing this without logging in for some time now. I created an account and continued, but am now blocked per the above in "pink" box.Six and 7 eighths (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2017 (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.

additional info

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Six and 7 eighths (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see that Admin Huon, says that I need to address the reason I was blocked. I see in his edit history that he corrected 2 of my edits. for the article: Zeynab Society, I had changed the reference citations from the middle of the sentence to the end. Per WP:CITE this is the preferred location unless it is becomes confusing as to which fact is supported by which citation. I think that in this case, it could be done either way, but if Admin Huon has determined it best in the original locations, I will concede that I erred. A second revert he made was for the article: Stenostola niponensis. I added the fact that the insect was from Japan. He reverted it as unsourced. I erred here as well. I did the research and verified it was from Japan, but I did not provide the source: here. I very much like to pick "Random Article" and add references where I believe it improves the content of the article. I have been doing this for quite some time. Today I created an account. I chose "Six and 7 eighths" but was blocked. Please tell me what I need to do, so that I can edit again. I will be more careful with the sources that I add. Six and 7 eighths (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per WP:ROPE. See also the discussion on my talk page. I am giving the benefit of a doubt here but be aware that anything that smacks of disruptive editing will almost certainly result in a very quick re-block. Happy editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I took a look at your edits in the course of reviewing the block, those edits I reverted were not the reason for the block. The block reason is "Ref Desk Troll". A brand-new account joining a contentious community discussion in an area prone to trolls and proposing sanctions against an established editor without even bothering to give reasons of their own is... interesting, to put it mildly. Maybe you could point us towards some of your IP edits so we can establish more of a track record? Huon (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well ignore the above then. Yes a made an account yesterday, All the easy names were taken, so I used my hat size. I'm not new though, I love to find citations for facts that others put in the articles. I normally just edit maybe a dozen or so "Random Articles" when I have time. Sorta like solving a puzzle. I look for facts that are not supported, and use google to try to prove that they are facts. If I can't prove it, I just hit the "Random Article" button and try again. The "Users Contributions" changes from time to time (I think its because my computer address changes). The articles are all over the place, its whatever the "Button" selects for me. Sometimes, when I am not finding citations, I will read the Ref Desks. Every now and then a question will disappear that has not aged (I think they scroll off when they get old). I do not like that. I found yesterday that there is a "Talk" page, and other people don't like it either. I made an account so I could talk and I voted like lots of others did. For the reason, I did what some others did and said it was because of another comment. I voted to have the person stop removing the questions, and let them age like normal. I also told the person that made the poll that it was ironic that my vote to stop having stuff removed....was removed. Six and 7 eighths (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. At first I wished I didn't click on the above link, but now glad I did. I don't know what I did to get the 'Troll' comments, but I don't need any of this. Please close down my account. I should have just kept to googlin' for article references without signing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Six and 7 eighths (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desks have been plagued by a Nazi Troll who keeps registering new accounts for a long time now, and one of the unfortunate side effects of the trolling is that people get suspicious about any new account.

If you are not the Refdesk Nazi Troll (Please don't be offended. I honestly cannot tell -- the troll acts exactly like an ordinary new user at first, then veers off into some serious trolling), try to understand and accept that a mistake was made and then undone.

If you are the Refdesk Nazi Troll, you can email me (link on my talk page) and we can have an offline discussion. I promise that I will never reveal what we talk about. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]