51.7.229.212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I found an article which contained grammar errors and awful text like "nature and architecture act as one", "Visitors can enjoy a river overlook...", "Another advantage of the new park is a picturesque view...", and so I fixed the problems.[1] An editor undid my improvements, falsely claiming that I had not explained them.[2] That same editor has now blocked me, clearly wishing to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. They have once again restored the poor quality text to the article. I think their misuse of administrative tools and destruction of positive edits defies comprehension. There was no possible reason to block me. 51.7.229.212 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2020 (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.
51.7.229.212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There was no damage or disruption to Wikipedia to prevent. Make useful contributions instead? I only ever make useful contributions! Such as here: I improved an article; the administrator who blocked me has harmed that article and Wikipedia by restoring substandard text to it, as detailed below. The block was clearly applied because an administrator wanted to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That was a misuse of their tools, and it has harmed Wikipedia. Again, as detailed below. 51.7.229.212 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block was applied because you continue to evade your block and are repeatedly caught-out by your obnoxious interactions with other editors. Lather, rinse, repeat. Talk page access revoked. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:53, 29 June 2020 (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.
I was in the midst of writing this to post on the article talk page when the user blocked me:
To note the poor quality of the previous text, which I fixed, but which two editors have unfixed without explanation:
- It is not grammatical to say "It is the first public park built in Moscow for over 50 years". That would be fine in a contemporary news report. It is not correct now; it should be in the past tense.
- Wikipedia is not a travel guide or an advertisement. "nature and architecture act as one", "Visitors can enjoy a river overlook...", "Another advantage of the new park is a picturesque view..." etc etc simply aren't of any value. They don't fulfil the basic requirements of an encyclopaedia article and appear to have been added by someone associated with the park, trying to promote it.
More problems that I did not get the chance to fix:
- "Time magazine puts Zaryadye Park on 2018 list of World's Greatest Places" - obviously written by a Russian-speaker, it is totally grammatically incorrect, using the wrong tense and omitting articles and pronouns, as well as not being formatted correctly.
- "The floating bridge is a thin air structure" - weird nonsense, needs rewriting.
- The image gallery adds no value at all, not even having captions to identify what the images are. It should be removed.
- Apart from these specific problems, the article is in general excessively detailed and badly written. For example: "The large amphitheatre adjoins to the Philharmonic and it is covered with a dome, the so-called glass bark, to protect the audience from the rain. The amphitheatre is a stepped landscape design descending from the hill to the stage. The spots are made of wood. The paths between the rows are filled with small pebbles and become part of the drainage system. The amphitheatre organically fits into the natural landscape of the park. The large open amphitheatre in Zaryadye can accommodate 1500 spectators." That is excruciating. The encyclopaedic necessity would be fulfilled by a single sentence along the lines of "The park has two amphitheatres, the larger of which is covered by a dome and can hold 1500 spectators.
- "See also" contains a link to Kitay-gorod - why? The relevance would need to be explained.
- Note for the reviewing admin
This block log is relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A51.7.229.0%2F24 Favonian (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |