Taxus Baccata

That's now veering into a misunderstanding of WP policy on sourcing, which is where I thought we might end up. I am reasonably certain Crowley did not self-define himself as a philosopher, and therefore, any characterization of him must be derived from secondary sources independent of the subject. It has nothing to do with a consensus we as editors establish, because that would be considered original research. Even in a basic Google search, there is very little considering Crowley to be a philosopher; he is much more widely considered in reliable sources to be a mystic, occultist, or writer. Many sources that claim him as a philosopher are mirrors of other sites, or contain some errors (such as "writing ritual for the Scottish Rite", which is not strictly true). MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Greetings! I fixed a mistake that existed in quite a lot of articles and didn't need discussion because it was already prohibited by Wikipedia's rules of styling. I used the same edit summary at each edit and a bot thought that I was a bot (!) and blocked me from editing. Can you unblock me some way?

Decline reason:

Per allegations of socking by a banned user below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (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.

}--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User blocking --PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to appeal this block, please add {{unblock}} to your talk page and explain why you should be unblocked. You will also need to convince the community that there won't be any more problems with this account. -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have more to say but I am posting this first, and will explain the reason for the block in the next few minutes. However that you know what to do before I had had time to place a template on this page suggests that you are not a new user. What user names have you used in the past? -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 94.65.32.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have more to say but I am posting this first, and will explain the reason for the block in the next few minutes. However that you know what to do before I had had time to place a template on this page suggests that you are not a new user. What user names have you used in the past? -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hav been using IP addresses since October 2010. I never had a registered account. I knew what to do because when I went to edit another page, it said (among others) "ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked."--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for blocking you account is that you are using an automated process to change dozens of articles and I want to check at WP:PEERAGE whether you assertion is true. If your edits are acceptable then a pause of 72 hours (or less if there is consensus sooner that the edits are OK) is not a problem. But if your edits are against the consensus then such edits are disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use any automation. I just openned many pages together. And, anyway, just to delete the word "Sir" and paste an already copied edit summary, isn't a difficult thing to do.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from WP:PEERAGE:

"Sir" is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight or a baronet. --94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made were far from the type of edits that new causal editors to Wikipedia make. You have not answered my question about whether you have edited under a different user name. Do so or I will extend the block and take it to a check user. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time for this specific issue about style see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Peers aren't styled "Sir." If you want to past anything here that you would like to appear on that project page I will copy it over. As I will do for the comment you have just posted here about peerage -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered your question. Scroll up and you'll find the answer.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using IP addresses since October 2010. I never had a registered account. I knew what to do because when I went to edit another page, it said (among others) "ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked."--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What other IP addresses have you edited under? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my calculations you made about 100 edits in under an hour. (14:27-15:20 September 2012) this is an unusual edit pattern and I find it doubtful if you did that by opening 100 pages and editing them before closing them on one screen. By what method and using what tool did you sect the target pages? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but as it is at WP:PEERAGE, why is debate done?--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the question to the wikiproject members, because if they agree then the edits can stand if not then they will have to be reverted. Before you make any more edits to articles space I would like conformation that the edits are acceptable from a content point of veiw. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time I am trying to find out more about you. If you are going to make mass edits of this sort you really need to create a user account see Wikipedia:Why create an account?, because otherwise editors have little chance to discuss the changes with you because as soon as you reboot you router you will be using another account and other editors will have difficulty finding you to ask you questions. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. Please check whether User is Vintagekits. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]