User talk:Summerfell1978

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Medicine-related articles, especially your recent edits to Long-term effects of alcohol. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! AnupamTalk 17:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:Summerfell1978, I am very honoured to receive a barnstar from you as well. Indeed, I try to be welcoming. This award has made my day and I pray for God's blessings on you and your family. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 19:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Curtis Yarvin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The source is directly from his blog. He is a blogger. Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not write on my User Talk ever again. You can say what you need to on the relevant article talk page. This is a first warning. Summerfell1978 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Summer, when Acroterion blocked you just a month back they noted that in addition to edit warring you were also casting aspersions. Your block expired just a few days ago and in that time you have added questionable BLP content and possibly casting aspersions against an editor and pushed OR into contentious articles in a rather reckless fashion . I would suggest a self imposed AP2 tban but I'm not sure that covers Yarvin. Springee (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Drop the snarky comments like, "If you had trouble with clicking on the links to read them," or you are likely to end up at ANI or similar. Springee (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is no circumstance under which it is ever a good idea to add unsourced medical conjecture about how a BLP's children were conceived to their article. jp×g🗯️ 04:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. For which page? Thanks! Summerfell1978 (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The diff is linked in the message. jp×g🗯️ 23:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a superscript like and when people hover it, it has that fact as a tidbit. For a human being who talks so much nonsense about natural life and the importance of God's ways, he's being a bit hypocritical. You won't find valid sources about it because he would never disclose his medical records publicly. But statistically, as said, a healthy couple has a 1/750,000 to 1/1,000,000 chance of having two sets of twins born naturally. His wife having 7 past miscarriages is beyond proof in addition to the previous information. Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

That would still be WP:OR. Just10A (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Springee (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Summerfell1978 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop doing this shit or you'll be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

1)User Chess has an emergency user slap button on his page, inviting users to use it on him.

2) User Springee said something silly, per the rules of "slip up and make a silly mistake", I found it to be appropriate.

Furthermore, the trout page says "Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake." With that being said, since you're an experienced user, below is a message directly to ScottishFinnishRadish.

Message for ScottishFinnishRadish for not reading the rules.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Summerfell1978 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You said one was for shame and called another editor deplorable. That is clearly inappropriate. If it continues you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You're exactly right. I'll be awarding you a barnstar for your serious efforts very soon. Summerfell1978 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

How is this guy still on here? He came fresh of a month-long (!) block and is arguably even more disruptive than before. And I'm not even sure if this is a serious user at this point or some absurd troll --FMSky (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Advice: take down the sarcastic barnstar. This sort of BS will not end well. Take a deep breath. Go do something else for a while... Carrite (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand you have recently come off a month-long block, which one would have hoped would have made you edit more cautiously, but I guess not. You have been blocked for two weeks for this in response to this. The next instance of incivility, harassment or attacks should meet with an indefinite block IMO. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 10:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC).

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).

Summerfell1978 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's fine if the block stays, but how can you block me on grounds of "incivility, harassment or attacks"? For sending a single Whack Trout to two different users? One user has it as an emergency button on his page, which I did for fun. The second user I did it to is because I just learned about it. The default message the Trout sends is "Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.". So what's the point of having the Whack Trout at all, if admins take such an extreme approach to blocking users over it. @ScottishFinnishRadish posted on my talk page to "stop doing this shit" which is very "wtf" in and of itself. If Wikipedia has Whack Trouts and a bunch of fun stuff that have existed over a decade without issue, I think admins can constrain themselves before being so aggressive towards new users who just see it as a silly thing. In my head I then said okay whatever, and I put it aside and appreciated her efforts to inform me about it. So I went through the barnstar list and since she has a long history on Wikipedia and she's an important user, I realized it's not a nobody trying to help me, but is actually a Wikipedia veteran, so I chose the da Vinci barnstar as he was a Renaissance man, and a lot of these types of Wikipedia editors/admins have many different skills so I thought it was relevant. This block is honestly really fucking weird to be honest. I have to say Wikipedia is one of the more odd communities in terms of social interaction and social norms, whether in real life or in the internet. So am I really blocked for sending a Whack Trout in jest and for awarding someone a barnstar? Ever since I learned about those I've been awarding users left and right. So by the way...am I allowed to award people after this block or is there a violation? I swear to god I feel like admins are so unforgiving on this site for no reason. Skim through this explanation and please explain to me what I'm missing, so I can learn, because I honestly don't get it. Thank you in advance.

Decline reason:

You seem to be justifying your conduct. You would do better to accept that you made mistakes, and have learned from the experience. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. I will AGF that you're not merely trolling in your unblock request, and answer you seriously. Did you not read my block message? Click on my links? I told you there that I blocked you for this. Nothing about blocking you for "sending a single Whack Trout to two different users". And now you're trying to convince the reviewing admin that the "barnstar" to ScottishFinnishRadish was in earnest? Good luck with that. Compare Carrite's good advice immediately above. Valereee had also, at WP:AE, specifically pointed at your barnstar to SFR as "making me wonder if you're cut out to work in a collaborative environment at all". Neither of these warnings from experienced users made any impression on you, it seems, as you continued to edit without taking any account of them. Please click on the links I have provided here. That's what they're for. Bishonen | tålk 17:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC).

  >Did you not read my block message?

  I did.

  >Click on my links?

  I did.

  >I told you there that I blocked you for this.

  Yes I clicked on that, hence why I discuss the award in my unblock request.

  >I told you there that I blocked you for this. Nothing about blocking you for "sending a single Whack Trout to two different users". Actually you said to me here the reason you blocked me, and linked to that exchange about the Whack Trouts. So I'm genuinely sorry that I don't know exactly what the ban was for, if you linked to it I'm assuming it's tied to the ban.Again...hence why I'm asking for a review and explanation in the request.

  >Compare Carrite's good advice immediately above. Valereee had also, at WP:AE, specifically pointed at your barnstar to SFR as "making me wonder if you're cut out to work in a collaborative environment at all".

  You have to please give me some time. The Carrite comment I didn't even see until I came back to Wikipedia and saw I was banned. You are assuming that I'm seeing all of these things, I am unable to be on Wikipedia for extended periods of time. Sometimes I need to step away for hours. This is not my job, I'm a newbie editor.

  >Neither of these warnings from experienced users made any impression on you, it seems, as you continued to edit without taking any account of them.

  Again, I didn't see their comments. You are assuming I did. And don't even see how it can be construed as sarcastic. Seriously, what the heck guys?

  >Please click on the links I have provided here. That's what they're for.

  Again, I have. And everything you linked to, I mentioned in the original post already. I don't know why you think I didn't read your comments if I literally wrote about the same exact issues brought up to me in your links. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also could I please add this? I am sharing this to express my feelings. And I hope you feel better and I didn't mean to cause you anger with my response. Responses like "Oh, come on" and accusing me of trolling, and in a very patronizing manner saying "Did you not read my block message? Click on my links?", and saying "Good luck with that" and so on are not really a tone I expect a leader to use, especially in a setting in which a newbie is merely offering an explanation, Bishonen. I can see that you're very upset or that I've somehow struck a nerve. I really didn't know that by awarding a barnstar and by using a Whack Trout that this site says is literally acceptable and in good jest warrants for a ban. So after 2 weeks I'm just not going to interact with anyone anymore, I'll stick my to Med Bubble and just edit articles related to the field of medicine. Because this is really weird. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I will tell you for the third time why you were blocked, bolding and capitalizing the bit you seem to keep missing: "You have been blocked for two weeks for this IN RESPONSE TO this." There. As for not seeing the warnings, your excuses for that are disingenuous, since you edited between the warnings and my block. OK, I'm done here. If explaining your block three times won't do it, I give up. Bishonen | tålk 18:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC).

Hello, Summerfell1978,

You have been editing on the project for 2 months and have already been blocked 4 times. You have spent more time here blocked than unblocked. Many editors, like myself, have been editing for over a decade without any blocks at all. Having been blocked 4 times is not a good sign for your longterm participation here. If it isn't obvious, which it should be, it's likely that your next block will be indefinite so please stop pushing the envelope or editing in questionable content into articles or playing games because the community is losing patience with this. No one on this project is irreplaceable and if you want to be able to continue to edit when this current block is over, try to be viewed as a positive and not a negative. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"You have spent more time here blocked than unblocked. Many editors, like myself, have been editing for over a decade without any blocks at all.". That's very good for you, Liz, but I don't compare myself to other people in life. I have a very serious job so I'm not able to sit down in my spare time and read every single Wikipedia guideline and rule in detail, so I'll have to ask you to calm down and know that moving forward I'm going to just focus on medical and surgical articles, as that editing community is pleasant to deal with. Have a nice day. Summerfell1978 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 10:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I was unblocked April 8, and permanently banned just now on April 9. It makes no sense. I've made zero edits to Wikipedia. This block came 10 minutes after my reply to Liz's message on my talk page. Summerfell1978 (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

Summerfell1978 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This can't be serious. What did I do to prompt a permanent block? Summerfell1978 (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you don't know what you did wrong, you'll just do it again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Ninja if I'm permanently blocked for responding to someone, who posted a paragraph on my own talk page, I think that's a bit ridiculous. I got the hint before. I decided I would stick to medical pages. If you even take a look at the last block it was odd too. They penalized me for adding a Whack Trout on a user's page even though he has it listed on his page that he welcomes them. And since it was a new thing, I did it to another user. It literally says at the bottom to not take it seriously and that it's a silly joke.

I was unblocked April 8 and blocked April 9. Really, for this edit? I posted nothing else except this edit, so the reason can't be something other than this: ""You have spent more time here blocked than unblocked. Many editors, like myself, have been editing for over a decade without any blocks at all.". That's very good for you, Liz, but I don't compare myself to other people in life. I have a very serious job so I'm not able to sit down in my spare time and read every single Wikipedia guideline and rule in detail, so I'll have to ask you to calm down and know that moving forward I'm going to just focus on medical and surgical articles, as that editing community is pleasant to deal with. Have a nice day."