User talk:CosmicInterloper1977

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

September 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Legionary. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

buzz off CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is not an acceptable response to a warning about your violations of our policies. Either you will demonstrate the necessary competency to edit on this project, in a constructive and civil manner, or we will show you the door; your choice. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i wasnt gonna edit it anymore so i dont care what you say CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore warnings at your own peril, then. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore you warning. I told you I wasn't gonna do it again anyway. Remove the warning. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No -- you said you "don't care what you say" to a final warning. I will not be removing it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will be reported. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also gonna go lengths to get your revisions reviewed 3x over and delete the ones that don't have direct citations or correct identification of media. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:HOUNDING and threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT; also would be pointless because I cite all of my edits. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Minié ball. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also false. I simply listed the wars they were used in. Stop falsely warning me, or be reported yourself. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to provide a citation to a reliable source for that information, something that you've been repeatedly warned about. You need to stop arguing and listen to the warnings you're being given -- this is approaching the line of disruptive editing. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will be reported and demoted from your rank for doing this.
Unwise decision. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I warned you repeatedly that you were expected to edit this project constructively and civilly; your repeated insistence that you will not do so and that you will not listen to warnings is the reason for this block, as your behavior is incompatible with our expectations for user conduct and demonstrates an intent other than to constructively and civilly contribute to the goals of this project. As such, I've blocked you indefinitely, until such time as you can demonstrate that you understand what is expected of editors here, and commit to abiding by our policies and guidelines -- both for content and conduct. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, still going to report you to the administrators board. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2025 (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).

CosmicInterloper1977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Falsely blocked due to personal implications from a moderator on Wikipedia. Rank demotion should be normalcy after this is resolved, due to the person being unprofessional and deleting my religions for no reason. I would prefer another moderator to read this appeal. CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a sensible appeal, as it in no way addresses the reasons for your block. Demonstrate to us that you understand why you've been blocked, and tell us what you will do differently going forward, if unblocked. (And dial down the combativeness, that's only making your situation worse.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2025 (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.