User talk:T0mpr1c3

Factual inaccuracy in the above. I reject User:Cullen328's assertions of disruptive editing. There was in fact an extended discussion on Talk:Claude Shannon that I initiated myself. Even though, in this instance, I consider the consensus to be wrong, I agree that it is a matter of editorial discretion. All my edits have been reverted and I have not engaged in edit warring to change that. Blocking me after the fact, and indefinitely, is simply piling on. Somebody else can talk some sense into these people. I am done here. τ℗ʍ (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with consensus, but then implementing the non-consensus version of things in dozens of articles is nothing but disruptive. This goes doubly for Erdös, where you were pointed to past discussions about this topic. If you're done here, there's no reason to unblock you. Huon (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been criticized for lack of self-reflection before, but never by a collection of people so peremptory and self-righteous. All the same I commit to making no further disruptive edits, indeed no further edits in the Wiki mainspace at all, in the hope that this account may be in good standing going forward and can be retired according to my wishes expressed above.τ℗ʍ (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't intend to edit, there is no reason to unblock you. I don't know if stewards have responded to your request, but they will either do it or not, although my understanding is that Wikipedia is physically located in the United States and not subject to UK or EU law. 331dot (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me break it down real simple. Short words. This is my request. 1. I need this account unblocked so that it is in good standing. 2. I need this account in good standing so that it can be renamed, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, which the stewards presumably follow. 3. I need this account renamed so that it can be retired according to my request above. I also have some polite suggestions for reviewers. Read or ignore as you see fit. a. I suggest that Wikipedia should consider safeguarding my privacy, as an EU citizen, with privacy rights that are guaranteed by EU law, unless Wikipedia does not intend to operate in the EU going forward (which could be the case, I don't have a crystal ball). b. If a reviewer does not know whether or not Wikipedia is obligated to follow certain privacy standards, I suggest that reviewer would be well advised to find out before pre-emptively dismissing the notion, if this is relevant to the reviewer's self-appointed role. τ℗ʍ (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you need (stated above) and what Wikipedia needs (for disruptive accounts to remain blocked) are entirely different matters. As Wikipedia administrators, we are only interested in the latter. Since your needs do not happen to coincide with Wikipedia's in this instance, I am declining your request. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]