146.199.22.234

In regards to Thomas Heatherwick

Re:my edit at Thomas Heatherwick. If I had not reverted, someone else would have, as you were not following the appropriate process to handle a challenged edit. My sole intent was in ensuring that the edits that were not disputed by either side but removed simply by accident were brought back into place. By reverting to the last undisputed edit, at least any further back-and-forth-reverts (which should not be taking place but that is because at this stage you should not be reverting per Bold, Revert, Discuss) wouldn't keep reverting the non-disputed content as well.

Your removal of the gallery is very much a bold edit. Nothing wrong with bold edits—without them, very little would ever get done—but when they're challenged, that means the onus of discussing and finding consensus is on the one committing the bold edit. In this case, that is you. We call that the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. This is a fairly major part of editing Wikipedia. It's not rude, it's not disruptive: it's following well-established Wikipedia processes.

Please take a step back, calm down a bit and explain on the article's talkpage why you feel the gallery should be removed. If someone reverts your edit in the mean time, don't restore it. Take your time and be patient. No harm has come from the gallery being there up until this point; no harm will come from it staying there a bit longer until you can build proper consensus to remove it. If after a reasonable time of waiting, no one has bothered responding, or if there are responses but they form a clear consensus that yes, the gallery should be removed, you can (if someone has in the mean time reverted your edit) remove it again, while noting the talk page discussion in your edit summary.

By doubling down on the re-reverting (your behaviour is called "edit warring", even if you haven't crossed the so-called "bright line" of more than three reverts in 24h) and calling people "rude" and "disruptive" for following a process that is a deeply-embedded part of the 'pedia—even if the miscommunication and unintentional removal of other edits muddied the waters a bit—the only thing you're effecting is that people are less likely to listen to your reasoning for removing the gallery. Reasoning that may very well be sound and something around which consensus will easily form, but also reasoning that you have yet to properly present beyond very short explanations in your edit summaries.

All the best, AddWittyNameHere 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

In all that chuntering, you did not give any coherent reason for undoing my edit. Undoing edits without having and stating a good reason is rude and disruptive. That's made clear at WP:REVEXP. Now go pester someone else. 146.199.22.234 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Rather than "pestering" you, I was in all actuality attempting to help you. As you clearly don't welcome receiving my help, I'll leave you be. Best of luck. AddWittyNameHere 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Congrats, you've just met BKFIP (hence the block). FYI - ^theWOLFchild 14:09, 4 August 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? 146.199.22.234 (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Enforcement of your community-based ban. Kuru (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2018 (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.

---