Open main menu

User talk:Walterblue222

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unjustified. Please remove it.

Walterblue222 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you are saying you were not edit warring? What is this then? — surjection?〉 19:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is edit warring started by Per utramque cavernam, yet I noticed that they are not blocked for edit warring. I contacted them through their talk page and they refused to respond appropriately. I reverted their reversion because their revert was unjustified and incorrect. Are you saying that this should have been handled differently, despite their refusal to respond or allow my appropriate, explained, justified edits to the page? I'm all ears. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The two key differences are; 1. Per utramque cavernam is a (at least more) trusted member of the community, and 2. several editors disagreed with you on that very user talk page, yet you still decided to try your luck and force your changes in. No, you are not supposed to revert the reversion of someone else, but discuss the matter. — surjection?〉 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"No, you are not supposed to revert the reversion of someone else, but discuss the matter." Is this not a universal rule? Per utramque cavernam reverted the reversion of mine, and refused to discuss the matter... I didn't see 'several editors disagreeing with me on that very user talk page' - there was one (Chuck Entz) who disagreed, and one who responded with personal insults. No one brought up any information that invalidated my suggested edit, and seeing as Per utramque cavernam refused to respond or discuss the matter, I thought it appropriate to correct the page. After doing so, Per utramque cavernam inappropriately reverted the edit, removing my addition which was appropriate, applicable, justified, and valid. What should I have done instead? Thanks. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not a cut-throat rule, but reverting outside of status quo that editors disagree with is worse than reverting to the status quo. As for "insults", those too, even if they were insults, were clearly a sign of disagreement, which I'm not surprised at seeing the argument you have boils down to "because I say so". "No one brought up any information that invalidated my suggested edit" is not an excuse to edit war either, and your edit was by no means "appropiate, applicable, justified and valid" if every editor who had discussed the matter before had disagreed with your viewpoint. As for what you could have done, you could have tried to get more eyeballs on the matter by using the Tea Room, but I doubt you would have found too many people who would have been willing to agree with you there either. — surjection?〉 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection My argument isn't "because I say so", it is that the definition on the page is incorrect. My viewpoint is that the erroneous definition be obliterated, but in my most recent edit I included it - despite it being factually incorrect. This is not an opinion, any more than saying that 'the sky is blue' or 'the grass is green'. The phrase "cunning linguist" has nothing to do with "cunnilingus" - not in spelling, not in meaning, and rarely (if ever, as claimed by Per utramque cavernam) in usage. Disagreeing with my viewpoint is fine, but removing an appropriate definition of a term in favor of someone's personal opinion that 'since the words sound kinda similar, they're the same!' is absurd. Their argument "boils down to "because I say so"". My argument boils down to: the term "cunnilingus" and the phrase "cunning linguist" are separate and should not be conflated as they are completely unrelated. I don't consider a personal insult to be "discussing the matter". I am unable to post in the Tea Room; when I try, I am notified that I am currently unable top edit pages but it says that the "block has been set to expire: 02:29, 13 February 2019.", but the block was originally supposed to expire at "2/12/2019, 9:26:46 PM".... why did this change? Walterblue222 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Walterblue222 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mh... I'm sorry, but I have no patience for self-righteous people like you. Per utramque cavernam 19:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Then don't interact with me. You chose to disagree with fact and you chose to make an issue out of something that is not subjective, in favor of perpetuating falsehoods and claims based on... what? That the term and phrase sound kinda similar? Your argument is invalid and subjective, mine is infallible and objective. I'm not self-righteous because I can (and do) admit when I make a mistake - maybe you should learn how to do so as well. Walterblue222 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Per_utramque_cavernam - Claiming that I am "self-righteous" for not accepting false information is foolish and incorrect. I didn't create the word "cunning", nor "linguist", nor was I the first person to use these words in conjunction with each other - I want the appropriate definition for the phrase, which has nothing to do with myself personally. Someone being a 'cunning linguist' is not the same as performing 'cunnilingus'. This is simple fact, not my personal opinion, and calling me "self-righteous" for supporting the proper definition is quite absurd. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The page has citations on it from real-world sources. End of story. This is like those people who say "gay can't possibly mean homosexual because it means happy!". Pure ostrichism, another word I imagine you'll balk at because you don't personally use it. Equinox 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wrong. ostrichism is a term. cunning linguist is a phrase. cunnilingus is a term. Understand the difference? I don't "balk at" terms that I don't know or use, I disprove of conflating two unrelated terms that 'kinda sound similar'.
Claiming that "gay can't possibly mean homosexual because it means happy!" is NOT the same as claiming that "'cunning linguist' can't possibly mean 'cunnilingus' because they are unrelated terms that are not synonymous or homophonic.
Someone being a 'cunning linguist' is NOT the same as performing 'cunnilingus'. This is simple fact, not my personal opinion. The term and the phrase are different in spelling, punctuation, pronunciation and meaning - very different from 'gay' having seperate meanings, because they sound the same, are spelled the same, and yet can mean two different things. I'm not sure how to spell it out any clearer, but denying this fact is absurd. Furthermore, something isn't infallible simply because it "has citations on it from real-world sources" - if I publish something stating that the sun should be called a shoe, it doesn't make it so. Walterblue222 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified Block by MetaknowledgeEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unjustified. Please remove it.

Walterblue222 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My edit of the page cunning linguist was not "edit warring". The edit was not "trying to re-add the same duplication for which he was blocked last time." I added the literal definition of the phrase. I had previously removed the (inappropriate) "pun" definition, which I included in the edit. This edit was not edit warring, and does not meet the requirements for being blocked because of edit warring. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge:

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The content absolutely belongs in the entry. The content wasn't "removed repeatedly" because it was not added repeatedly. I was blocked for reverting the revisions of another editor, who had refused to discuss the edit. I attempted to achieve consensus as per the instructions given to me, in an ongoing discussion that I am now unable to contribute or respond to. My initial reaction was to remove the inappropriate content and enter a correct description of the phrase; my most recent edit was simply to add the correct definition, with the (literally) tag to avoid confusion, and while keeping the incorrect description intact (and primary) due to the ongoing discussion.

If I had inserted content that didn't belong, and continued to add the same incorrect content or inappropriately remove content, it would be considered edit warring; however, I inserted content that DOES belong, I did not remove any content (despite it being incorrect), and did not attempt to submit the same content more than one time. This is not edit warring.

I have no intention to be involved in edit warring - which is why, after my previous block, I did not engage in any activity that could be interpreted as 'edit warring'. Please remove this unjustified block.Walterblue222 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea if you focused your efforts elsewhere, it seems there is little progress being made on cunning linguist, but there are lots of other terms which could use attention. - TheDaveRoss 19:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I may very well focus my efforts elsewhere, by my own prerogative, however I don't see how I can do this while blocked... Walterblue222 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a change in your communication style would be good to. This little post by Geographyinitiative has managed to sway me more than everything you've written up to this point. Per utramque cavernam 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I assume you meant "too", not "to"? My goal isn't to "sway you", it is to have the most accurate content possible. When I initially tried to discuss the issue with you, you said "No." and refused to provide anything to support your reasoning for reverting my edit. It looks like you would benefit from a "change in communication style" as well. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "too", sorry about that. I admit I haven't been extremely communicative either. Per utramque cavernam 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 

Block Review?Edit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unjustified, please remove it.

UnblockEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unjustified, please remove it. This block was due to "Edit warring: Repeating the same edits", which I did not do. The edit I made was justified, reviewed, and proven to be legitimate by multiple users on the talk page. I had not made "the same edit" before, thus it is impossible to claim that I was "repeating the same edits".
We will figure out a way to make the cunning linguist page work (or delete it if necessary). Tell me how you want to change the page and, if I agree with your ideas, I will see if I can discuss it with the other users and make those changes. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, the most recent edit (for which I am currently blocked due to) was simply to change the 2nd definition (which should be the first) from being listed as (rare) to being listed as (literal).
The literal meaning is not rare, and while some editors claim that this phrase only has a sexual meaning, they also state that anyone using the phrase as a substitute for the perverted near-homonym (cunnilingus) is fully aware of the proper definition - and claim that it is a "common pun" - so if it is common, and everyone using it is aware of the literal definition, then the literal definition is not "rare".
Furthermore, a user on the talk page of the article even stated that they had seen "the article title "Why it's cunning to be a linguist" today in the newspaper on my train home from work (London's free Metro paper, page 25, "News in Focus"). And I must admit, this one is purely about the benefits of language-learning." This not only proves that the term is NOT rare, but also that the literal meaning is legitimate, used today, in reliable sources. Walterblue222 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the page should have the literal definition, with either no inclusion of the perverted sexual innuendo, or it being a footnote - certainly not the primary definition. The best support anyone has been able to make for conflating the phrase "cunning linguist" with the term "cunnilingus" is that they 'sound kinda similar', which I didn't think was enough to warrant modifying the definition of the phrase for (it certainly isn't for other terms... i.e. suggesting the definition of 'mastication' be modified to mean 'jerking off' because it 'sounds kinda similar' to 'masturbation'... absurd).
I think that the first and only definition for 'cunning linguist' should be the literal definition of the phrase, as the vast majority of examples and citations do not support the current (perverted, incorrect, near-homonym) definition. Walterblue222 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I have added 'literal'. I think the question of 'rare' versus 'common' is totally seperate from the 'literal' versus 'nonliteral' question. It will have to be addressed separately. I am going to go eat. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
All right, thank you. Walterblue222 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Metaknowledge's False AccusationsEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Metaknowledge has repeatedly blocked me with no valid reason or justification. This block is unjustified, please remove it. This block (according to Metaknowledge) was because of "Edit warring: Repeating the same edits" - which is absolutely false. I had not made "the same edit" before, thus it is not possible that I was "repeating the same edits". The edit I made was justified, reviewed, and proven to be legitimate by multiple users on the talk page for the article; also, the addition I made has been re-added by another user and is currently (and correctly) a part of the article page. Please remove this unjustified block. Walterblue222 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked three times, and have created six unblock requests. The problem isn't that other admins are unaware that you are blocked, the problem is that we agree with the block and are therefore not unblocking you.
If you want to contribute to Wiktionary that is great, but it seems more like you are here to crusade about a specific term, which is counterproductive and harms the project. You should probably just assume that any further edits you make to cunning linguist will be reverted and will result in progressively longer blocks. If that is problematic for you then there are numerous other projects out there which may be better suited for you. If I have misrepresented your activity here (as a crusade), and you are truly here to further the project, prove that by doing some non-controversial work in other areas once your block expires. We all have entries, definitions, deletions and keeps with which we disagree, but this is a group project and in order to participate you have to understand that sometimes your opinion will be in the minority. - TheDaveRoss 13:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss::You agree that the block is justified, despite the reason given for the block being false? Why?
I didn't join this project for a "crusade", I did so to contribute to wiktionary. I noticed that "cunning linguist" had an incorrect meaning, and edited it accordingly - I would do the same for any other term or phrase that I come across, if the definition provided is objectively incorrect.
I understand that this is a group project, and that my opinion may be the minority. However, this does not change the fact that objectively, "cunning linguist" and "cunnilingus" are being inappropriately conflated, due to sounding similar (they aren't even homophonic, just 'sort-of'), and the occasional usage of the phrase as a sort of double-entendre innuendo near-homonym.
I don't understand why any admin would "agree with the block" and refuse to unblock me - the reason for the block is false, because I hadn't repeated the same edit multiple times, and the addition I added has since been re-added to the article (not by myself, or a 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet' account).
How do you consider it justified to block me with the explanation that I inappropriately edited a page, when the edit I made IS appropriate and belongs, and is currently on the page??? Walterblue222 (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I reject your premise; I don't think the reason given was false. Further, you ought to have been blocked for block evasion, and you ought to have been blocked for disruptive edits; even if the reason given was not to your liking there are others which are applicable. At the end of the day there is really only one reason people get blocked -- for impeding the progress of the project.
If you are not on a crusade, you should stop acting like you are on a crusade. You speak of objective facts and truth and falsehoods, even the core issue you seem to have with cunning linguist stems from an inability to see nuance. It really does not seem like wiki-projects are the right fit for you. - TheDaveRoss 16:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't think the reason was false? So you're saying that if I go to a page and add something that appropriately belongs there, this is reason enough to get banned and my addition removed? Obviously consensus doesn't have a problem with my addition, because it's a part of the page now.
How did my actions impede the progress of the project? I added 'literal'. Hardly the same as vandalizing a page or edit-warring, yet somehow I deserve this block, even though the user who blocked me has repeatedly destroyed my additions and blocked me repeatedly without justification? "Blocked for block evasion", what block was I evading? I didn't engage in block evasion or disruptive edits, how can you even suggest that?
One word on one page, that belongs there, that has been re-added by others, yet you say that this somehow disrupts the entire wiktionary project?
Yes, I can see nuance. Can you see how outrageous this whole debate is? The phrase and the term aren't spelled the same, aren't pronounced the same, and don't have the same meaning. The usage of the phrase as a pun, and a bad one at that, is a sort of double-entendré, having one literal meaning and another suggestive, implied meaning - but the phrase can be (and is) used with only the literal meaning, as opposed to the suggestive meaning which requires it be used in conjunction with the literal meaning. Walterblue222 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
lol u still rong doe Equinox 23:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh really now? Care to explain how you got to that (false) conclusion?
You even have posted comments supporting my position regarding "cunning linguist", yet you still refuse to accept that the phrase is not identical to oral sex, and seem to believe that everyone else is as perverted as you are.
If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, but refrain from making infantile insults and disrespectful antagonizing comments. Walterblue222 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
CRY MOAR :D Equinox 03:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Have you ever given or received oral sex? It's quite nice. You don't have to be scared. Equinox 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a vagina or clitoris and therefor can not receive cunnilingus, pervert. "You don't have to be scared" is that what you tell children before you force yourself onto them? You're lucky to be hiding behind a keyboard, try speaking to me like this in person and we'll see who gets scared.
Do you realize that you are violating wiktionary policies by making personal attacks? Also by engaging in harassment, refusing to assume good faith, refusing to attempt to achieve consensus, refusing to collaborate or explain the falsehoods you repeatedly claim to be true, despite having nothing to support your assertions...?
If I'm wrong, attempt to prove me wrong, but refrain from making infantile insults and disrespectful antagonizing comments.
Error in replyto template: Username not given., can anything be done regarding the harassment, personal attacks and guideline violations of Equinox? Walterblue222 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox Although I am not offended by it, I think you have said some things that could be considered lewd by some people. My only thought is- are some of the statements you are making really improving Wiktionary? Help:Interacting with other users says that "Every edit should constitute an improvement to an unbiased multilingual dictionary." @Walterblue222 Help:Interacting with other users says, "If another editor angers you, please don't just come and yell at them; stay away from the discussion for a while and think it over, then come back and try to resolve the issue." I agree that some lewd things have been said to you. But even if you have been offended, I think that you should try to stay calm. Don't worry about it. This is what I would recommend for you Walter- stay away from that page for a while and come back to it later if you are still interested or have a new idea. There are some things that I am totally dissatisfied about in the Chinese part of this Wiktionary, but the other users like it. I do other stuff and don't get too focused on those problems. You don't have to win everything. Good luck! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Anything can be "considered lewd by some people", as we increasingly see where people cry "offended" to get benefits from a terrified Western society. And I'm not "angered", it's just deeply rooted in my personal principles that idiots should be called out, shamed and punished. Apart from that, great, go you! Equinox 11:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You have repeatedly made inappropriate, inapplicable comments and insults towards me. Yes, "anything can be "considered lewd by some people"", but you have been targeting me with with the clear intention to cause turmoil. Do you think this kind of behavior improves wiktionary? If it's true that "deeply rooted in your personal principles that idiots should be called out, shamed and punished", you must lead an exceptionally shameful and painful life. Somehow I doubt this, considering the fact that you're a liar, a hypocrite, and a bully. Again I reiterate:
If you believe that I am wrong, you're welcome attempt to prove me wrong. If you are unable to do so, refrain from making any further comments on my page.
Also, I'm fairly certain you are indeed "angered", but your lack of intelligence and maturity is no fault of mine. Walterblue222 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Why has this block not been removed? It is for edit warring, which I did not engage in; the edit I am currently blocked for making was valid, and is on the current version of the page... so why the heck am I blocked??? Walterblue222 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock RequestEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Troll edits? None of my edits have ever employed the use of "trolling". Claiming that my edits are "troll edits" is factually incorrect.

Multiple blocks? Yes, I have been blocked in the past. Why would this support being blocked again, for a different reason? "Clearly nonsensical"? I disagree, but instead of discussing the validity or sensibility of the phrase - per wiktionary guidelines - it was inappropriately removed; regardless, how does the addition of "talented pianist" justify blocking me? Furthermore, the most recent block was completely unjustified; it was for engaging in edit warring, which I had not done, and the addition I was blocked for was re-added to the article by another editor and remains there - so the justification for that block is nonexistent, and certainly doesn't support being blocked again.

Again, this block is unjustified; please remove it. Walterblue222 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative can you provide any assistance here? This is ridiculous.

Unjustified BlockEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unjustified and @Mnemosientje presents false information as an explanation. None of my edits are "troll edits". Please remove this block. Walterblue222 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I have to agree with you, Walter. I don't consider your edits as trolling at all. As for the reaction of the community, to be honest, it was over the top, bordering on insulting. Sadly I can't unblock you, I don't have that power anymore. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I urge the community to give Walter the benefit of the doubt and remove the block - this was a single-issue thing, guys, about a sexual pun. OK, maybe Walter can become more informed about our policies, but I see no ill will, or at least no more ill will than the average Wiktioanrian, in Walter's behaviour. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Equinox, on the other hand, made incredibly inappropriate comments in his interaction with Walter. However, that's not the point of the discussion. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps @Mnemosientje isn't familiar with the policies on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Help:Interacting_with_other_users? On the top of that page, bolded, is the direction to "Never assume malevolence", which is clearly being ignored by this unjustified block, and previous blocks of me as well. Hmm. Walterblue222 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I had followed that guideline so well that I honestly thought you were merely a clueless prude until you revealed your true trollish nature. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge "Yeah, I had followed that guideline so well that I honestly thought you were merely a clueless prude until you revealed your true trollish nature. —Μετάknowledge” - um, are you the same person commenting from the account “Mnemosientje”? You not only failed to abide by the ‘never assume malevolence’ guideline, but also several others as well, especially: "Neither use nor respond to any logical fallacy. In particular, don't fall into the trap of attacking other people instead of the ideas that they put forth. Doing so is both impolite and destructive to the community. Try not to make any offensive comments; like the old saying, if you can't say anything nice, please don't say anything at all.
You claim that I “revealed (my) true trollish nature” - which is subjectively absurd and objectively false, but I guess expecting civility from you is foolish considering the manner in which you have interjected your unwanted, false opinions and disrespectful personal attacks already. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(Butting in here) Honestly, taking into consideration why you were blocked on Wikipedia, I really don't believe this block to be too harsh. If I were the blocker, we'd be looking at an even longer block. Keep your cool, take this time to contemplate why you were blocked in the first place and just wait it out. If you're serious about returning as a productive contributor, please stop flooding us with unblock requests! --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE “taking into consideration why you were blocked on Wikipedia” - is completely irrelevant. Is this website Wikipedia? No.
Should my actions, interactions or blocks from wikipedia, which are unrelated to this absurd block, be taken into consideration here? No.
“Keep (my) cool”? I have, despite the repeated personal attacks, disrespectful mockery and lack of civility shown to me here.
“Take this time to contemplate why (I was) blocked in the first place and just wait it out”? I was blocked based on false information and subjective opinion, not due to my statements or actions - so what exactly do you think I should contemplate?
Why should I “just wait out” an unjustified block, instead of requesting that people behave appropriately and follow the guidelines for editors on this site?
Why are personal attacks from others acceptable, yet appropriate additions and corrections I make are unacceptable?
“Flooding (you) with unblock resquests!”? Seriously??? I made unblock requests because the reasons given for blocking me are false. If my unblock request was responded to appropriately, I wouldn’t have made any more - yet instead I get ignored, insulted and mocked, in violation of the guidelines that editors are supposed to follow here.
Speaking of “flooding”, though - the only flooding I am aware of regarding me is from notification after notification from the user Equinox, who went through and “thanked” me for every contribution I had made that had since been removed, “trolling” me after repeatedly making antagonistic and unwarranted personal attacks on my talk page. Is this sort of antagonistic, infantile behavior considered appropriate by you? Why are others not held anywhere close to the standard of etiquette and respect that I have followed??? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time – of course your actions on Wikipedia, inherently a sister project, have consequences on Wiktionary. Why? Because your behaviour has not changed – you get hung up on specific subjects, you polemicise in absurdum and then play the victim card when you get called out by admins and other users. A block becomes inevitable and then you go on flooding the project with unblock requests (from the block log: "Wastes our time with numerous nonconstructive unblock requests."). But you know what? Wiktionary has always taken a forgiving stance, allowing users to participate despite being blocked on other projects, and you were initially provided the benefit of the doubt by this community. You, and you alone, put yourself in this situation – not Equinox, not Μετάknowledge and not Mnemosientje. Own up to your mistakes, do your time and make sure to come back as a better contributor when, and more importantly, if your block gets lifted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by the first sentence of your response? "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time”? My actions on Wikipedia should NOT “have consequences on Wiktionary”, and claiming this seems pretty absurd to me - where in the guidelines for Wiktionary, or really, anywhere on Wiktionary, is it stated that actions on a different site should, would, or could have any impact on Wiktionary? My behavior on Wikipedia, or any other site for that matter, is irrelevant and not a legitimate reason to make any sort of impact on my account here.
Wiktionary has most certainly NOT “always taken a forgiving stance”, and I was NOT “initially provided the benefit of the doubt”.
‘I and I alone put myself in this situation’? Sorry but no, this is absolutely false. Did you miss the part where it states "3/4/2019, 10:37:48 AM: Mnemosientje blocked Walterblue222”? It doesn’t say “Walterblue222 blocked Walterblue222” - anywhere. I certainly own up to my mistakes - and this is not one of them. “Do my time”? Sure, I would - if I had ‘done the crime’. However, seeing as this block is based on objectively false information, no, I won’t just lay down and let this injustice slide.
This block is unjustified. If I had blocked myself, and there was information noting that actions on a different site impact my account here, maybe I’d be inclined to heed your advice. Present proof and I’ll consider doing so. If you can’t produce this information - and I seriously doubt that you can - then you are quite clearly a liar and a bully, to put it mildly.
Go ahead and present the evidence I requested, or admit that you sentiments above are false, subjective, and incorrect, and unblock this account as this block should not have been made in the first place. Walterblue222 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Walterblue222 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unjustified and @Mnemosientje presents objectively false information as an explanation. None of my edits were malevolent, disruptive, "clearly nonsensical", or "troll edits", and basing a block on multiple previous blocks from a different site is not appropriate. Please remove this block as it is unjustified, based on untruths, and in violation of the guidelines here on Wiktionary. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Straw-man arguments are tiresome. In fact, reading back at the various "arguments" you have presented, you may have provided examples of every single rhetorical fallacy that exists. In the hopes that you find something more productive to do with your time, and in the sure knowledge that the regular contributors here will, I am going to block you from editing this page as well. - TheDaveRoss 04:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Walterblue222".