User talk:Strongwranglers

Say what's on your mind... if you have to. Strongwranglers (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Strongwranglers! 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:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! QuicoleJR (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to echo this, and welcome you to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Strongwranglers (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Strongwranglers, and once again, welcome! I have been monitoring the discussions at Talk:Hamburger and occasionally participating, and I wanted to discuss an issue that arose there with you, namely your tone in discussing various topics with other editors. Your Talk page is the proper venue to talk about this; it would be out of bounds at Talk:Hamburger, because that page is reserved exclusively for discussions about how to improve the article Hamburger.

So let me start by talking about a couple of core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, namely, WP:Civility (a Wikipedia behavioral policy) and WP:Assume good faith (a Wikipedia behavioral guideline). In a nutshell, the Civility policy says that:

editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect, and they should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

On more than one occasion at Talk:Hamburger, you have commented dismissively about other editors' contributions, accused them of editing in bad faith, or explicitly challenged their right to comment at all:

None of these comments are appropriate or acceptable at an article talk page, per the WP:TALK guideline, and many of them violate behavioral policies or guidelines, notably WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Comments of this nature must stop, as they will get you into trouble if they continue.

You are still a new editor here, and perhaps you came from a social media background where a pugnacious approach and in-your-face, combative tactics are common, but that is not how it works here. We are all volunteer editors, all working towards the same goal, which is to build a free, neutral encyclopedia. We rely on collaboration and consensus among our fellow editors to achieve that goal. Please consider this a reality check and a reset point: take a look around at the culture here, and please modify your behavior to be more collaborative, less combative, and trust that other volunteers are here for the same reason you are: to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to keep you on the path to becoming a good and productive editor, and to highlight some of the pitfalls that some editors stumble into so you can avoid them. Please feel free to contact me on my Talk page anytime, or check out the Wikipedia:Teahouse for any questions about editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 17 September 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to request another administrator to look at this. I don't feel the site is very serious in regards to anything that has happened. This is the result of a Witchhunt over which I was reported for 1 singular word changed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fargo_(1996_film)&oldid=1311535237 which cited this source https://chicagoreader.com/film-tv/fargo/

And to which I received nothing but vicious and acrimonious behavior in response to, and again, this continued up to this point.

Please explain to me how 1 word, which is sourced, is a 'disruptive edit'. No one has done so.

No one cares to assume good faith with me, but rather they link me to WP:AGF and then berate me. No one cares to be WP:CIVIL in regards to my posts, again they link me to this and display cruel and unusual behavior as a response.

This has left a bad taste in my mouth. Of which I am uncertain as to what the response is because it makes me feel as if the world itself has become a cruel and sadistic place over one which values reason.

If that is the case, let me know. I don't think Wikipedia is the venue to correct that problem from, but it can be corrected.

Strongwranglers (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see any indication you're blocked for that "one word". You're blocked for incivility, WP:IDHT, and WP:POINTy editing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:04, 27 September 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.

Did how the discussion was going at Fargo have anything, anything at all, to do with why you added "black comedy" then "comedy" to The Wire? 2600:382:AAB1:14AD:607F:5881:1EF5:6BBE (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wire#c-Strongwranglers-20250915161900-The_Wire_is_a_comedy It would be because it's literally a black comedy/comedy in addition to a drama, same as The Sopranos. The Wire is exactly the same type of show, but with a slightly different setting. (https://hbowatch.com/story/the-wires-best-comedy-moments-when-baltimore-got-funny/)

The Sopranos:

Genre

Crime drama

Serial drama

Psychological drama

Black comedy

It's not controversial in my opinion, whatsoever. It's very common for HBO shows to include black comedy, and sometimes that's seen at the forefront, and other times not.

The only issue is that I didn't find enough sources to merit the inclusion and I also didn't really feel like digging too much deeper into it. Perhaps in the future I will be so inclined, but with the way I was having my head bitten off for making minor changes it put me off wanting to try to do so. Strongwranglers (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, SW indicated the intent to edit The Wire that way, and then announced having done so, on the Fargo talk page. Part of SW's problem was a habit of asking whether one edit would be comparable to another edit, but then going ahead and making that edit without awaiting a response or without regard to a negative one, and then repeating it after reversion and objection by others.Largoplazo (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

But your edit where you add two sources to black comedy in Fargo (1996 film) is naturally, without sin.

Again, this is very much a case where if it was one way, I'd see your point. But it's the other way. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Strongwranglers, I wanted to ask about your comment about The Wire on the ANI page. The reason I asked is because in this talk page comment on Fargo, you said "Just because I can find sources that describe The Wire as a black comedy doesn't make it so. In fact, I can go update The Wire using this source and it would appreciably make the article worse." Could you clarify your opinion on this? Your edit to The Wire was about an hour after that comment, so did you change your mind on The Wire being a black comedy? Truthnope (talk) 20:52, 27 September 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).

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

---

Request reason:

No one cares to review anything beyond the dramatic display of events presented by other users.

I really find it Ironic that I am accused of nothing of relevance and don't get a fair shake my way.

Really great.

This world is awful and I have come to hate it deeply. An illogical group of jargon users. How awful.

Leaving this here for myself, and when I receive a response that is along the lines of 'I looked at what other people did and because they did that I will also do that.': I want to remember this moment. I will always remember this moment and keep it dear to me for times when people plead for clemency or mercy in my personal life, or in any other arena of life.

I will remember that it's more important to "echo the group" as opposed to get it right.

And I will make sure that this has a meaning to the world. "What did he mean by this?"

Gosh, I don't know. What does it mean throughout history when the world is getting it wrong and offends one person. Sometimes nothing and sometimes everything.

This place isn't very good for what it's supposed to be.

I get a lot of things quoted at me, read them, and find it was hypocritical. I find this process hypocritical as well, and bourne out of a desire to suppress information.

There is a reason that Wikipedia itself is never accepted as a scholarly source and I understand that so clearly now.

Just a fan site that outgrew its britches.

Strongwranglers (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This isn't a persuasive unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:23, 28 September 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.

Strongwranglers (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I will remember that it's more important to "echo the group" as opposed to get it right. I'm gonna turn this around to illustrate what I understand from this about your perspective: It's more important to echo whatever one inexperienced user thinks about what Wikipedia is and how it works than to follow the usual policies, guidelines and practices.

• If multiple editors independently disagree with content change by SW, we are all wrong and SW is always right.
• If multiple, independent reliable sources say the same thing but SW disagrees, they're all "stupid", and SW is always right.
• If multiple editors explain how to handle disagreements but SW doesn't want to slow down and listen, that's fine because SW is always right.
• If the blocking administrator summarizes all the valid reasons, based on named guidelines, for the block, because SW either didn't read them or has simple dismissed them, there are no valid reasons because SW is always right.
• Finally, if SW thinks Wikipedia is supposed to be something other than what it is, then Wikipedia is a failure because it isn't what SW thinks it should be, and SW is always right.

Does that seem more reasonable to you then the possibility that if a growing number of people are objecting to your activities here, they're right and you're wrong?

As for Wikipedia not being a scholarly source, it not only isn't intended to be, it can't be, be its content is all user-generated by mostly anonymous users. It certainly wouldn't become scholarly if it worked how you think it should: would people consider content "scholarly" because it's the opinion of an anonymous user going by the name "Strongwranglers"? It's meant to be useful as a ready reference and overview on millions of topics, but it carries the precaution that it's no more reliable than sources that are cited and on editors' correct reporting of what those sources say. There's no pretense that Wikipedia is anything more than that, nor that it can be. Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You coordinated with other users to pile onto me and attack me without warrant because you can't control your emotions.

I never went out of my way to "report" you because you never have done ANYTHING that has offended me, moreover nor COULD you do so with a text box.

I find your idea that you're some "high-minded" individual to be laughable. Just like it's laughable when I get bad latin quoted at me or someone misuses "logic". It's a joke. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Editors are here to improve it, with arguments being a minor part of it.

Not everyone is out there to get you. We don't care. If there's valuable contributions / collaborative intent to improve the project, we will pay attention; beyond that is just noise.

"How does this edit improves the encyclopedia?" should be asked with a somewhat reasonable frequency. iris 5:23p 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

"Does that seem more reasonable to you then the possibility that if a growing number of people are objecting to your activities here, they're right and you're wrong?"

Argumentum ad populum what a joke.

"Did you consider... my EMOTIONAL RHETORIC!?!?!?"

What a joke. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way I'm very concerned you don't seem to understand what a Bell curve is.

Do you think EVERYONE is actually high-minded and intelligent? The bulk of people aren't.

So having 10-20 people vs. 1 who dissents is meaningless.

Eppur si muove.

God what a dumb repeat episode of humanity.

What a joke. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And you will have NOTHING to say in response, as is typical of this joke of a world.

Win the argument too hard and it's offensive.

What a joke. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongwranglers, I'm perfectly willing to hear you out or even to humour you, but there's nothing for me to work with in this unblock request. I see earlier that you were given some very good advice, which I'll quote: You are still a new editor here, and perhaps you came from a social media background where a pugnacious approach and in-your-face, combative tactics are common, but that is not how it works here. We are all volunteer editors, all working towards the same goal, which is to build a free, neutral encyclopedia. We rely on collaboration and consensus among our fellow editors to achieve that goal. Please consider this a reality check and a reset point: take a look around at the culture here, and please modify your behavior to be more collaborative, less combative, and trust that other volunteers are here for the same reason you are: to improve the encyclopedia. We're not here to fight each other. We're here to work together. That takes patience. If you haven't got any left, spend the rest of your weeklong block recharging. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

That is super awesome that you support people crapping on me for the better part of 3 weeks and then if I get frustrated it's a "me" problem.

You know, this all is exactly how people who have never experienced the "short end" of the stick react. "Oh yeah we got it right and you're wrong haha".

I have more patience than a hospital, but I don't have tolerance for this lack of actual meaningful process or justice. Patience and tolerance are not the same, and they have been conflated in the modern era. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

In this case I will say something I hope wakes you up:

I hope you experience the exact same process. Maybe one day you will need a ruling in your favor, or need someone to understand you. I hope that instead of doing so, they quote the rules at you and don't give you any help, just as has been done to me. Perhaps, if you experience the pain you inflict on others without concern, you would in fact consider that your actions affect others.

No one here really cares about that. It's all performative. "Oh yeah we quoted a bunch of WP:XYZ articles at you haha you suck have a bad day".

Meanwhile you allowed users to crap all over me with some process I don't know jack about and wasn't able to handle well, as they well know.

Then of course, you will stipulate "oh yeah even if you get piled on and crapped on that's totally not something you should bring up haha :)"

Again, I truly hope you experience this in reality and not on an internet website. Get delayed for a flight. Get your driver's license or passport denied.

Have 10+ people pile on at you in the wrong and then be told "oh yeah they're totally fine".

Good for you.

Good for everyone here. You make this world an awful place. An illogical, jargon-focused, "groupthink"-mentality, place.

And people wonder how we have these "bad groups" of people throughout history. Guess what? They felt they were fully in the right whenever they did this to someone like me!

Congrats! You really won the "make someone feel like shit" award. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And you know, make sure that everything good is ignored.

Ignore every contribution that I made without issue, all the edits I made which helped, in favor of some random people piling onto me probably using discord or whatever server to coordinate their attack.

Really great.

Again, I hope you go through the same, but in real life. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You rejected every attempt to explain anything to you, you tested everyone's patience, and you're continuing to fight and to refuse to listen to what you're being told. If you want patience, respond cooperatively rather than antagonistically and with derision and contempt. Try saying "I see" or "I understand" or something like that a few times and then act accordingly. That's how you'll get a different result. Largoplazo (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I reject You.

You, as a user, are not high-minded, civil, or anywhere NEAR capable of handling discussions like an adult. You turned this into your personal facebook-esque playground where "bad users" get reported for their "bad opinions"

What a joke. Like a child's idea of what logic and reason are. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't say a thing in the world that would make me "report" you, like a child.

I don't lose my temper with this sort of nonsense, but I'll be damned if it's dignified as anything but childish nonsense.

Go on, throw a fit again. I don't really care about you doing so, just like if a toddler threw a fit at me it wouldn't bother me.

You and I are not the same. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather drink poison and die as opposed to live in a world where your sort of logic is revered.

Socrates lives in my disdain of your banal opinions and your abuse of the process because you cannot win an argument.

Go on, ask Athens to kill me. I don't care. You're not a great person and never could be. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

And you can't win arguments, just ask others to prevent me from coming to the field.

Typical. This world. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your witch hunt has left me UNSATISFIED.

MORE WEIGHT.

https://www.historyandheadlines.com/history-september-19-1692-giles-corey-the-only-man-pressed-to-death-in-america-salem-witch-trials/

MORE.

WEIGHT. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

That's quite enough. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Curry's paradox, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2269292

It's the primary source of the article itself which says it is not a paradox. Please read the sources and the edit comments.

Jesus christ. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of paradoxes. DVdm (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of paradoxes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Paradoctor (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of paradoxes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. - DVdm (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to List of paradoxes. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued personal attacks and disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.  Sasquatch t|c 01:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I am issuing this block based on how you responded to your previous block and then continuing to issue personal attacks against other editors. Sasquatch t|c 01:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

After this edit, you are banned from my user space. If you must contact me, ping me here. Paradoctor (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)