146.198.193.75

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:146.198.193.75 reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 02:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

there was an edit war yesterday morning. everything was resolved, the article improved. What is the point in blocking me, now? Also why does User:William Harris not get blocked for making four reverts in half an hour? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests should only deal with your behavior and not that of others. To be unblocked before the 24 hours is up, you would need to demonstrate an understanding of the edit warring policy and describe how to resolve editing conflicts properly. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block serves no purpose. The dispute was already over yesterday morning. And I understand the edit warring policy perfectly well. I also see that it's irrelevant if some people are exempt from it. Want everyone to take it seriously? Then make sure it applies to everyone. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Talk about your own actions only, not those of other people. Yamla (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2019 (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.

Only you can control what you do. Others did not force you to click the edit button and make ten reverts. Unblock requests should only address what you do. It is not enough to say you understand the policy, you must demonstrate that you do. You could make a report about the other user, but I don't think it would end well for you and I suggest that you drop the matter and focus on yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

1. "You could make a report about the other user" - no I couldn't. I am blocked.
2. "I don't think it would end well for you" - and why would that be? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have said all I wish to say. Someone else will review your request, or it will just expire on its own. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

So, you just make a weird threat and then refuse to clarify? OK. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

the block serves no purpose. The stupid dispute, in which I fixed a violation of Wikipedia's core policies, was over a day before an unrelated passerby decided to complain about it. The other party in the dispute also broke the rules. Blocking me for breaking a rule long after I broke it, with no sanction against a user who also broke it, simply makes no sense. And I see no attempt to even justify it. What is the block for? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural close. You're no longer blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Dingo, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 12:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may not unilaterally remove other editors' comments from Talk pages, and you most definitely may not alter them and their meaning, as you have done with this edit; it is a form of vandalism and is not tolerated. Your next stop will be WP:ANI if you continue. General Ization ^Talk 12:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And yet, other people unilaterally removed my comments. If their edits were ok, so were mine. If mine were not, theirs weren't either. Odd how you have attacked me and not them, isn't it. Just like you didn't care about User:William Harris breaking the 3RR. Why are you stalking me, anyway? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No purpose is served by this block. Like the previous, it seems motivated purely by a desire to pester and provoke anonymous editors. People made repeated highly insulting personal attacks against me, but apparently it's my removal of an unnecessary template on a talk page that is the heinous crime? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block was absolutely appropriate. After looking at your edits, I was tempted to extend your block. I've settled with revoking your talk page access. Please take this break to consider if you are willing to contribute to Wikipedia constructively when you return. Your behaviour has no place here. Yamla (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2019 (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.

You are free to avail yourself of WP:UTRS but if you do, you'll want to choose your words carefully so as to avoid a significant extension of your block. --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Read Up

I didn’t come across any of your edits until this evening, but I did look at several of them. And most were positive; fixing grammar and other copy edits (what some call “wiki-gnoming”). And I also saw at least a few that lead to your blocks. I think you could be a positive contributor here. I’d just suggest you read up on a few policies. Check my main user page for a “quick and dirty”. And feel free to ask any questions. And a general two-part rule on Wikipedia: be nicer than you think you should be, and never make a comment about a person, only the content they edit. Trust me, this’ll go far. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---