User talk:Blurbleflurth

September 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Displacement current has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Displacement current was changed by Blurbleflurth (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854633 on 2016-09-22T02:57:28+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry! Blurbleflurth (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at J-coupling, you may be blocked from editing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Neutral current. Donner60 (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mike V • Talk 03:38, 22 September 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I clearly deserved to be blocked, and this is not actually an unblock request; you missed one of my disruptive edits at 1917 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final. That should be reverted as well, despite its lack of ludicrous technobabble. Blurbleflurth (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not a genuine unblock request SpinningSpark 12:02, 22 September 2016 (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.

What's up?

Sorry, I forgot to notify you that I reported you at WP:AN/I: [1]. I'd be interested in knowing whether you're a bot as I guessed, or just a person looking to see how easy it is to mess up wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your unblock request, I guess the latter. Anyway, you can probably make a new account and be an editor for real if you want. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I saw your note and as you might expect was amused to be assumed a bot (I can't decide if that is flattering or not...perhaps not). The latter, yes. I used to edit Wikipedia anonymously a good while ago. I have a friend who is or maybe was an active Wikipedia "vandalism" police person and he was recently explaining how vandalism is reverted very quickly by automated and manual systems, so I wanted to see how quickly non-obvious stuff like adding esoteric sentences to esoteric articles would get caught (I was assuming the likelihood that an automated system would flag is low, and that a manual reviewer might dismiss my nonsense as just more esoteric stuff in an article full of esoteric stuff). I'm actually pretty impressed, although I was going out of my way to write totally ludicrous nonsense by the end (I think the post that first got noticed used the phrase "dream states" in an article about electricity). Anyway, sorry, I shouldn't have gone on as long or as repeatedly as I did. Or done it in the first place I suppose. Thanks for the note. Apologies if there was considerable effort in undoing my contributions. Blurbleflurth (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]