[WikiEN-l] disputing block: 69.108.172.162, lysdexia

[Theresa Knott]

On 11/8/05, Autymn D. C. <lysdexia at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Rdsmith4 is misrepresenting and libelling me, and abusing his
> joke-of-a-power again by blocking me again after I had insisted and
> enforced that an article be put in an accurate grammatic mood to fit
> the context, which was not real but ideal.


It looks to me like you were insisting that the phrase "The sun emits
power" to "the sun emit power" . etc.You were told by numerous people
that this is wrong yet you continued to revert.  BTW he is not
libelling you. Please don't use legal terms like this.

A short exchange is at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:
> Lysdexia#Grammar_at_Black_Body>.  There, I pointed out that his and
> others' calling my edits only "trolling and disruption" was a fraud, as
> every edit I've ever made to Wikipedia was, in this order: cleanup,
> fact checking, factual disputes, linking, added or alternate
> explanations, expansions.  I checked the block policy page and saw that
> nothing I've done calls for blocking me; in deed, every incident that I
> was in was caused by someone ignorant, irrational, and uncouth
> reporting me to the administrators because I had done something to
> correct or improve a space that /they/ /did not/ /understand/.


When everyone disagrees with you, you should at the very least
_consider_ the possibility that they are right and you are wrong don't
you think?  By insisting on your wording even though it plainy reads
wrong and sounds silly you are opening up yourself to accusations of
trolling.

Every
> mistake that they claimed I'd made elsewhere was /their/ mistake of
> being an ignorant fool.

Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. Please don't call people names.
>
> Lately I've been bringing out my contentions to the Talk pages before
> editing over the articles,

Did you do that in this case before you reverted and called someone a
vandal for correcting your bad grammar?

and I hadn't even broken the three-revert
> rule when I was reverting when I found that I was blocked after trying
> to fix some numbers in an Order of magnitude article.  Here's the note
> that's related to my work then:
> <http://egroups.com/group/message/free_energy/20090>.  I was logged in
> then, and found that the block was for a day; but the next time I found
> that my cookies expired, for Yahoo! and Wikipedia, so I had to log in
> again.  But before I did, I saw what happened when I tried with the
> numeric IP.  The same block screen came up, so I logged in and found
> that the block was advanced another day!

This is the autoblocker. You need to not edit at all either logged in
or not. Then the block will expire.

>  I seem to recall this
> happening before, and I didn't deserve it then either.  Note that every
> time this rogue took abusive action against me, he gave no warning
> before so that I could reply instead of doing whatever he was told that
> I shouldn't, against policy, and that he calls my edits of fake value,
> also against policy.  This person has no clue what he's doing, and I
> really need to update my article, as I have a life outside edit or
> dispute wars.

I'm glad to hear that. Come back after a day, but please do not
correct any more grammar, as you appear not to understand it.

Theresa