User talk:伟思礼

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am logged in. 伟思礼 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use

WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 16:20, 22 April 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.

Allegedly I am using a proxy that is not welcome. If this is true, I don’t know how to change it. I do not believe that problems with a proxy should be used to block a logged in user of that proxy. But I am blocked from saying so! The block has prevented me from appealing it and the items below by any method I can find. The various pages I have consulted say I can e-mail administrators, but the links only go to pages also blocked. It also prevents me from fixing the Cluebot screw-up mentioned below.

Your opinion about blocks on proxy services is not, I'm afraid, how Wikipedia functions. If you have an exceptional need to use a proxy, please check

WP:IPBE. Otherwise, you will need to disable your proxy and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. --Yamla (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously it is not how it functions. The point is whether it should function that way. Not much point in telling me to disable a proxy that I don't even believe exists! And not much point in keeping logged-in and therefore identified people from doing useful things just because some unidentified people did something bad. "My Public IPv4 is: 104.28.116.85" I see that it says "iCloud private relay" which is an Apple thing that is turned on for my iPad but should not affect this laptop. How to turn it off, I'll have to do some research for. I stand by my belief that blocking an IDENTIFIED person due to the route his packet takes makes no sense.

If you wish to change Wikipedia policies, you are free to attempt to do so. However, you cannot do so via the unblock process. I may agree with you that proxies should not prevent logged in editors (I don't, because of massive abuse of proxies), but I can't unilaterally change Wikipedia's policies as these are decided by the community, not by individual unblock reviewers. Note that the iCloud private relay is indeed a proxy. --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 伟思礼! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Nebuchadnezzar II, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references to the bible in that article. How is citing something in the bible different from citing any other source? one of your links mentioned including "majority and minority views," so it seemed appropriate to mention sources that go against the paragraphs statement that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Since I didn’t write the document(s) cited, it isn't my "original research."伟思礼 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We avoid primary sources such as religious texts. You nee secondary sources making those arguments. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources Doug Weller talk 17:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eg “did not describe” and “it is not clear”. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt posting here will accomplish anything, but I don't know where else.

I did a web search, and one of the hits was an Indonesian Wikipedia page.  Shortly thereafter, I got an e-mail in Indonesian saying that "HsfBot" had left a message on my Talk page.  I see no reason for looking at a page to cause that, but as I look at this page, apparently it did not happen.  So maybe two bugs that need to be fixed? 伟思礼 (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]