User talk:Squidclaw

Squidclaw, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Squidclaw! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 Tour de France[edit]

I reverted your edits as the article is only about the 2017 edition of the race. Other information should go on the tour de France main article. --Racklever (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Squidclaw! Thank you for your contributions. I am MJL and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address your concern: Eisenhower became President 20 January 1953. This was before the 1948 Siena Poll you discussed at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Thank you for your contributions! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is absolutely no legitimate excuse for this, this is an opinion based abuse and overreach of authority by @Cullen328 This suspension is unnecessary, there was no abuse perpetrated in any way shape or form. More so, it's difficult to know what abuse has been perpetrated when the administrator authority simply states you are suspended for abusing multiple accounts, which at the very least puzzling being as this is the only account I've ever edited Wikipedia with and I haven't even used Wikipedia in over three years until last night when I got text from my bro to go check out the whining nonsense and crying and complaining against him on the 2022 Tour de France Wikipedia page so I did, then I made a few edits while I was there, which were valid, truthful and accurate edits which were properly cited and not even remotely close to anything that constitutes abuse or vandalism, and then I went to the talk page to comment on the two editors that reported and got my brother suspended, which might have been unnecessary and legitimate, but it was not abuse and the very mention that anything I did was abusive is offensive and I understand that Wikipedia may very well have to defend itself against criminal minded harmful persons who intentionally commit acts of vandalism but this is ridiculous and illegitimate Squidclaw (talk) 11:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You edited at the behest of and in support of your brother. This is a form of sock puppetry.. Please read the WP:GAB. It will tell you that complaining about other users will not get you unblocked. Tschau!-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

an ASSUMPTION made as a guise for the legitimacy of enforcing a suspension which was made for petty and personal reasons is all that reply says. Based on assumptions that you probably think you're right about, so I guess I'll have to clarify.

Ok it's clear I am not dealing with professionals here, but to clear up this blatant and irresponsible assumption YET ANOTHER administrator has made I most definitely DID NOT go and make an edit at the behest of my brother.

I went to check Wikipedia out because I got a complaining text FROM MY BROTHER.

when I got to Wikipedia I made a valid, realistic and cited edit about the 2022 Tour de France because after never reading the article before I noticed a few Important details which were missing because I just watched the race too, like about 300 million other people, and decided to add in some helpful, useful and accurate information that EVERY OTHER EDITOR MISSED INCLUDING MY BROTHER.

And NO I WAS NOT COMPLAINING about other users, although I will say I definitely missed the "don't complain" rule in the guidelines so I guess I got lucky there.

I read the link I was sent (WHICH APPEARED IN THE NOTIFICATIONS OF MY WIKIPEDIA PAGE) and that is where I saw those other users COMPLAINING AND WHINING AND FILING REPORTS AND ACTING LIKE 6TH GRADERS regarding my brother when they don't get their way.

I have every right to comment on a valid discussion that is going on and even offer some realistic advice which I then did and I don't have to explain myself to anyone.

Once again there it no legitimate justification for this suspension. It is being made for petty and personal reasons, based on assumptions of reasons you suspect might be real, maybe, probably, possibly, but now that I've cleared up how you misjudged and incorrectly assumed I'll expect that this unfair and unwarranted suspension will be overturned immediately. Thank you Squidclaw (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. If you wish to amend an open request, simply add to it, do not make additional open requests. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2022 (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.

You most certainly edited at your brother's behest. You wrote, "I got text from my bro to go check out the whining nonsense and crying and complaining against him on the 2022 Tour de France Wikipedia page so I did, then I made a few edits while I was there," on this your talk page. And you have unrelentingly complained about editors, myself included, on this talk page and elsewhere. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me @Deepfriedokra I have "unrelentingly" complained about editors yourself included? On this page and "elsewhere"?

Oh really? So the only edits I have made on talk pages, which my editing history will verify, is ONE edit on the 2022 Tour de France talk page, AS IN A SINGLE ONE, and then the only other talk edits I made were in response to this presumptuous and illegitimate suspension.

You mean to tell me the ONE edit I made on the 2022 Tour de France talk page, and the TWO replies I made regarding this unwarranted and illegitimate suspension are the reason I am suspended. So the factual things I said after I got suspended is the reason I'm suspended?

1 - the edit I made on the 2022 Tour de France page was a perfectly rational and legitimate talk page edit of an assessment of the nonsense I read regarding the incident with my brother, which was high school level nonsense of the highest order which is fine, it is what it is, not everyone is a writer or a lawyer. It ended for him with a bunch of whining and complaints instead of an actual heated, constructive, rational or even irrational debate, but again that's fine, we can't expect everyone to be writers or lawyers now can we?

That's going to happen, they're going to get mad and then manipulate the situation to the best of their ability to make certain they appear like innocent victims, which is to be expected.

THE POINT IS, I was not "relentlessly complaining" with my ONE perfectly rational edit. It wasn't "complaining" at all, it was assessing the situation as I saw it as an outside observer. It was nonsense, so I acted accordingly and explained that it was in fact unnecessary and could have, and probably should have been avoided.

2 at no time did I say anything illegitimate things about any of the editors, including you, in my appeals page. I simply stated the Facts, I was suspended based on assumptions and false accusations of my alleged intent, which at no time was harmful or against any rules in any way shape or form which therefore makes this suspension unwarranted and illegitimate.

Finally, in regards to the Quoted comment from my talk page that you made in the reply just above this, I already explained this once so I'll explain it again, yes I received a text from my brother regarding a bunch of whining and complain so I went to check it out and after reading the actual article, which HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY ARGUMENT, I made a few edits THAT WERE FACTUAL EDITS THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE TOUR DE FRANCE THAT THE OTHER EDITORS INCLUDING MY BROTHER did not include, so I did.

I saw that there was content that was missing so I entered it in THAT IS ENTIRE POINT OF WIKIPEDIA IS IT NOT? I was reading the article and said hey they didn't include the stage 14 attack or the unique way the rider won on stage 19

THIS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY BROTHER OR ANY OTHER EDITORS, it was missing content so I was like what the hell, I'm here I might as well make an edit or two I haven't been here in three years so why not? It isn't that hard to copy and paste a citation template and then add in my source article info so that's what I did.

In closing, making ONE edit on a talk page assessing an argument between other people isn't UNRELENTING COMPLAINING It's one rational and realistic edit

And I have not complained about other editors, I stated the Facts as they are, which cannot be disputed as you know and I know. It was claimed that I went running to the defense of my brother by being edits in his favor and by attacking other edits. Neither of these incidents happened. I made a rational, relevant edit regarding the 2022 Tour de France, that had nothing to do with anyone. Perhaps you should go and look at the edits. And a rational, level headed assessment of the nonsense argument I read is not against any rules, nobody was attacked. It was a perfectly reasonable statement saying that the entire argument should have and could have been avoided.

I suppose I'll have to go appeal this suspension again so I'll copy and paste. Thanks, enjoy the day. Squidclaw (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

amended appeal to suspension

Now I have been accused of "unrelentingly" complaining about editors? On this page and "elsewhere"?

Oh really? So the only edits I have made on talk pages, which my editing history will verify, is ONE edit on the 2022 Tour de France talk page, AS IN A SINGLE ONE, and then the only other talk edits I made were in response to this presumptuous and illegitimate suspension.

You mean to tell me the ONE edit I made on the 2022 Tour de France talk page, and the TWO appeal replies I made regarding this unwarranted and illegitimate suspension are the reason I am suspended. So the factual things I said after I got suspended is the reason I'm suspended?

1 - the edit I made on the 2022 Tour de France page was a perfectly rational and legitimate talk page edit of an assessment of the nonsense I read regarding the incident with my brother, which was high school level nonsense of the highest order which is fine, it is what it is, not everyone is a writer or a lawyer. It ended for him with a bunch of whining and complaints instead of an actual heated, constructive, rational or even irrational debate, but again that's fine, we can't expect everyone to be writers or lawyers now can we?

That's going to happen, they're going to get mad and then manipulate the situation to the best of their ability to make certain they appear like innocent victims, which is to be expected.

THE POINT IS, I was not "relentlessly complaining" with my ONE perfectly rational edit. It wasn't "complaining" at all, it was assessing the situation as I saw it as an outside observer. It was nonsense, so I acted accordingly and explained that it was in fact unnecessary and could have, and probably should have been avoided. It certainly wasn't against any rules it was a perfectly valid statement to other editors about the events I just read about.

2 at no time did I say anything illegitimate things about any of the editors, including you, in my appeals page. I simply stated the Facts, I was suspended based on assumptions and false accusations of my alleged intent, which at no time was harmful or against any rules in any way shape or form which therefore makes this suspension unwarranted and illegitimate.

Finally, in regards to the Quoted comment from my talk page that you made in the reply just above this, I already explained this once so I'll explain it again, yes I received a text from my brother regarding a bunch of whining and complaining so I went to check it out and after reading the actual article, which HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY ARGUMENT, I made a few edits THAT WERE FACTUAL EDITS THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE TOUR DE FRANCE THAT THE OTHER EDITORS INCLUDING MY BROTHER did not include, so I did.

I saw that there was content that was missing so I entered it in THAT IS ENTIRE POINT OF WIKIPEDIA IS IT NOT? I was reading the article and said hey they didn't include the stage 14 attack or the unique way the rider won on stage 19

THIS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY BROTHER OR ANY OTHER EDITORS, it was missing content so I was like what the hell, I'm here I might as well make an edit or two I haven't been here in three years so why not? It isn't that hard to copy and paste a citation template and then add in my source article info so that's what I did.

In closing, making ONE edit on a talk page assessing an argument between other people isn't UNRELENTING COMPLAINING It's one rational and realistic edit

And I have not complained about other editors, I stated the Facts as they are, which cannot be disputed. It was claimed that I went running to the defense of my brother by making edits in his favor and by attacking other editors. Neither of these incidents happened. I made a rational, relevant edit regarding the 2022 Tour de France, that had nothing to do with anyone. Perhaps you should go and look at the edits. And a rational, level headed assessment of the nonsense argument I read is not against any rules, nobody was attacked. It was a perfectly reasonable statement saying that the entire argument should have and could have been avoided and in all reality seemed to be over politics and protesters that had nothing to do with the Tour de France in the first place so if you ask me they're all guilty including my brother

Thanks, enjoy the day Squidclaw (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This borders on WP:TLDR, but I did read it. What really matters is the meat puppetry. You seem to think that you didn't when you clearly did, just based on what you say, so there are no grounds to remove the block. The accuracy or merits of your edit are in that regard not important. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

"This borders on tldr" is the reply I received from the previous admin. Literally 2pages, at most, and it couldn't be considered because it was too complex - there it is that's how you know, you're dealing with 11th grade reading comprehension, at best. It's too confusing and there's too much factual information that you just can't deal with. "This borders on meat puppetry and sock puppetry" these are their replies.

You can't read statements that are too long and you label things as meat and socks when you get confused and don't know how to justify or defend your actions. This is alarming not only because of the clear and obvious lack of reasoning or comprehension ability, but also a complete inability to formulate rational responses using chopped up partial sentence fragments like: and I quote "you seem to think you didn't when you clearly did", with absolutely no frame of reference or context, so let's just say I'm not even going to reply to that idiocy because it's completely disconnected from reality and seems like a whining variation of a reason to desperately be right about something when you know you're not only wrong, but you're probably on drugs, or some serious prescription medication, which is fine because mental health is important. Either that or you only need a 4th level education to make decisions here, but somehow have to manage an 11th grade reading comprehension, which would be impressive.

Then there's the matter of my edits. The fact that you didn't even read the edits is what doesn't matter, I guess is what you're saying.

You got mad that reality and the real world came in and disrupted your active editors with a reality check and it upsets you. This makes sense, obviously you want these grunts working hundreds of hours for free without rest or anything like the real world interfering with their work. Well this is understandable, but too bad, they're wrong and if they didn't know it then that's their problem. Inactive editors have rights too you know, I can make one edit every three years or I can come back and make 20 edits a month if I want. That's my business, if I want to edit once every three years then what business is that of yours, Wikipedia is for reading not editing.

Now that I've dealt with the previous reply. I definitely don't have to add anymore to my appeal request I just have to keep responding until someone actually reads it, because to any "objective" admin this will be among the most nonsense and illegitimate suspensions they've read in a month or three. Especially if there is any truth whatsoever about your meat and socks and dicks and jerks and clowns and trolls attacking this site. If any of that is true then maybe you're not really irresponsible for suspending my account briefly to investigate, ok yes it is because you could have just observed the account and found nothing. Either way it's definitely just dumb and a waste of time to keep it suspended. Squidclaw (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I feel like this should be obvious, but apparently it isn't: The unblock process is not intended to be a venue for the appellant to semi-coherently string together as many insults as they can. Since that's what you are doing, I am declining this request, and since I don't believe that anything more productive is forthcoming, I am removing talk page access. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (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.

No, I can't read statements that are too long, not due to my reading comprehension, but because I am a volunteer here in my free time, and I have other things to do in my life. I did read your edits, I said that the merits of your edits are not relevant to the reason for your block(block evasion). You are very, very close to losing access to this page due to your personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

--Blablubbs (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]