73.5.152.17

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Materialscientist (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

December 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:54, 17 December 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why is it that an obviously constructive edit (if anyone took a few seconds to figure it out) gets labeled as 'disruptive' and falsely as 'blanking'? Why don't you just be honest and disallow anonymous editing entirely if that's what you are going to do? Come on, give any reason for reverting that edit besides your ignorance or malice. The truth as as I said in the first edit summary, which is quite plain.

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

And how is it that you demand I give a reason for my edit - though I did already - while you give none? That's what the lie is. If Wikipedia really were run as it pretends to be, my edits would be given as much credibility as yours and you would give your own explanation or rebut mine. I deliberately made only the one edit that would be, by any poss1ible rational standard, not controversial, but that seemingly doesn't matter. Wikipedia is functionally an evil monopoly and, in the kindest possible interpretation, your system (human and machine) to stop 'vandalism' is out of control.

And there is no way I could address 'the reasons for my block' any better, because it doesn't make any sense outside the context I just indicated. Any DISRUPTION is caused by those people that revert a good-faith edit and give no reason for it, perhaps because they are using tools that allow doing so without actually looking at the content at all.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked for your actions, not those of others. You edit warred to preserve your edit, and seem to think this is okay because you are right. Edit warring and disruption are not acceptable. If you have grievances with Wikipedia, you can raise them once unblocked. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2023 (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 see that your first edit on Marias Pass [1] had the edit summary "‎Climate: only one needed; latter seems more reliable". I think it's an unfortunate oversight that no further edits seem to acknowledge it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I was referring to. The administrator just above (and the page he linked to) sternly say that your block is because of your actions, not others' - as if it were possible to divorce the two - every edit conflict, however it happens, must have two sides. 73.5.152.17 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You can only control your own actions, that is why unblock requests should only discuss your actions. There are proper processes to use if you are being wronged by others or policies are being violated; fighting fire with fire is not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I was one of the users that reverted you. Yes it was an oversight that I (and other editors) missed the edit summary. But for future reference, avoid uncivil comments like "rv idiot" and "your edit is vandalism". After all, we all make mistakes and Wikipedia is a community. Next time use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead of edit warring. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 21:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You've taken from my observation something I didn't intend. From my observation and my opinion, I did not express support that your block should be lifted, or that naming the section "Stupidity" should prove an effective tool for persuasion. It's true that the block is because of your behaviour, not anybody else's. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean to attribute those exact sentiments to you, either, only observing that you saw my main point. There should be no need for an argument about that. 73.5.152.17 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Boston—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been disallowed by an edit filter. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeatedly attempting to perform disruptive actions may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---