User talk:Summerfell1978
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | The Medicine Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Medicine-related articles, especially your recent edits toLong-term effects of alcohol. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here!AnupamTalk17:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
Please do not add or change content, as you did atCurtis Yarvin, without citing areliable source. Please review the guidelines atWikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.FMSky (talk)23:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mJPxG. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with acitation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerninghow we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page.There is no circumstance under which it is ever a good idea to addunsourced medical conjecture about how a BLP's children were conceived to their article.jp×g🗯️04:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related toarticles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Springee (talk)15:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop doingthisshit or you'll be blocked from editing.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whack!
You've beenwhacked with a wet trout.
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.Summerfell1978 (talk)22:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this guy still on here? He came fresh of a month-long (!) block and is arguably even more disruptive than before. And I'm not even sure if this is a serious user at this point or some absurd troll --FMSky (talk)23:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you have recently come off a month-long block, which one would have hoped would have made you edit more cautiously, but I guess not. You have been blocked for two weeks forthis in response tothis. The next instance of incivility, harassment or attacks should meet with an indefinite block IMO. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page.Bishonen |tålk10:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Summerfell1978(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's fine if the block stays, but how can you block me on grounds of "incivility, harassment or attacks"? For sending a single Whack Trout to two different users? One user has it as an emergency button on his page, which I did for fun. The second user I did it to is because I just learned about it. The default message the Trout sends is "Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.". So what's the point of having the Whack Trout at all, if admins take such an extreme approach to blocking users over it. @ScottishFinnishRadish posted on my talk page to "stop doing this shit" which is very "wtf" in and of itself. If Wikipedia has Whack Trouts and a bunch of fun stuff that have existed over a decade without issue, I think admins can constrain themselves before being so aggressive towards new users who just see it as a silly thing. In my head I then said okay whatever, and I put it aside and appreciated her efforts to inform me about it. So I went through the barnstar list and since she has a long history on Wikipedia and she's an important user, I realized it's not a nobody trying to help me, but is actually a Wikipedia veteran, so I chose the da Vinci barnstar as he was a Renaissance man, and a lot of these types of Wikipedia editors/admins have many different skills so I thought it was relevant. This block is honestly really fucking weird to be honest. I have to say Wikipedia is one of the more odd communities in terms of social interaction and social norms, whether in real life or in the internet. So am I really blocked for sending a Whack Trout in jest and for awarding someone a barnstar? Ever since I learned about those I've been awarding users left and right. So by the way...am I allowed to award people after this block or is there a violation? I swear to god I feel like admins are so unforgiving on this site for no reason. Skim through this explanation and please explain to me what I'm missing, so I can learn, because I honestly don't get it. Thank you in advance.
Decline reason:
You seem to be justifying your conduct. You would do better to accept that you made mistakes, and have learned from the experience. I am declining your unblock request.PhilKnight (talk)19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Summerfell1978 (talk)16:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for two weeks forthisIN RESPONSE TOthis." There. As for not seeing the warnings, your excuses for that are disingenuous, since youedited between the warnings and my block. OK, I'm done here. If explaining your block three times won't do it, I give up.Bishonen |tålk18:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Summerfell1978,
You have been editing on the project for 2 months and have already been blocked 4 times. You have spent more time here blocked than unblocked. Many editors, like myself, have been editing for over a decade without any blocks at all. Having been blocked 4 times is not a good sign for your longterm participation here. If it isn't obvious, which it should be, it's likely that your next block will be indefinite so please stop pushing the envelope or editing in questionable content into articles or playing games because the community is losing patience with this. No one on this project is irreplaceable and if you want to be able to continue to edit when this current block is over, try to be viewed as a positive and not a negative.LizRead!Talk!19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]Summerfell1978(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This can't be serious. What did I do to prompt a permanent block?Summerfell1978 (talk)11:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
If you don't know what you did wrong, you'll just do it again.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Ninja if I'm permanently blocked for responding to someone, who posted a paragraph on my own talk page, I think that's a bit ridiculous. I got the hint before. I decided I would stick to medical pages. If you even take a look at the last block it was odd too. They penalized me for adding a Whack Trout on a user's page even though he has it listed on his page that he welcomes them. And since it was a new thing, I did it to another user. It literally says at the bottom to not take it seriously and that it's a silly joke.
I was unblocked April 8 and blocked April 9. Really, for this edit? I posted nothing else except this edit, so the reason can't be something other than this: ""You have spent more time here blocked than unblocked. Many editors, like myself, have been editing for over a decade without any blocks at all.". That's very good for you, Liz, but I don't compare myself to other people in life. I have a very serious job so I'm not able to sit down in my spare time and read every single Wikipedia guideline and rule in detail, so I'll have to ask you to calm down and know that moving forward I'm going to just focus on medical and surgical articles, as that editing community is pleasant to deal with. Have a nice day."
Summerfell1978(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for sending a whack trout to a user who invited whack trouts by having the button on his talk page. I clicked it and posted it on his page. It says at the end automatically that it's silly and shouldn't be taken seriously. So it was new to me and I did it to another user since I just learned about it. I accepted the block because they said I was being somewhat rude with a comment I left. I accept this block. After that, while I was blocked, an admin I didn't know about, Liz, commented on my page the following: "You have spent more time here blocked than unblocked. Many editors, like myself, have been editing for over a decade without any blocks at all." As soon as the block time expired, I replied the following full comment: "That's very good for you, Liz, but I don't compare myself to other people in life. I have a very serious job so I'm not able to sit down in my spare time and read every single Wikipedia guideline and rule in detail, so I'll have to ask you to calm down and know that moving forward I'm going to just focus on medical and surgical articles, as that editing community is pleasant to deal with. Have a nice day.". I hadn't edited anything or interacted with anyone, and I was banned immediately after 10 minutes indefinitely. I really don't know why admins got so upset. I think I was being polite, and I even mentioned I would stick to just making the medical and health pages better instead of editing on political stuff that seems to rile up fascists and neo-nazis on Wikipedia, getting me banned.Summerfell1978 (talk)15:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You're showing why the block should remain, not why it needs to be removed. You are not "permanently blocked", suggesting no possibility of removal, you are blocked without an end date, which only means you need to convince an admin to remove it. The duration of the block is completely up to you. Quite frankly, you're closer to losing access to this page than you are to being unblocked.331dot (talk)10:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
@331dot:@Bishonen:@ScottishFinnishRadish:@Tamzin:@Liz:
"Quite frankly, you're closer to losing access to this page than you are to being unblocked."
That's fine, so quite frankly I'm just going to create a new account. Good luck finding it.
Note to public:The problem with editing on wikipedia is that half of this website's admins are mentally ill and the other half are socially inept. It seems that admins live on wikipedia and have contributed nothing positive to society. So when they see someone like me who has a noble presence in real life, their inferiority complex kicks in and they try to make themselves feel good by using some authority to put someone who is above them down. By the way, I don't know what prompts admins to post photos, but I'm not surprised the way most of them look. Some admins should consider purchasing some running shoes, or showering regularly, or to see a psychiatrist. I understand that there are cognitive and emotional deficits, as well as a lack of pleasure in their lives, but this is no excuse if they're running an website as an admin. Regards, Steve.Summerfell1978 (talk)12:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(block log •active blocks •global blocks •autoblocks •contribs •deleted contribs •abuse filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))