Jump to content

User talk:203.19.128.226

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2011

[edit]

Hello and welcome! It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content without explaining why. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing, and, if you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you! Mayur (talk•Email) 08:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was my intention. 203.19.128.226 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Reverse proxy with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Metricopolus (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Reverse proxy with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Metricopolus (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Reverse proxy with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Metricopolus (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop abusing your revert powers, and actually look at the content of changes before jumping to conclusions 203.19.128.226 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
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).

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

Request reason:

Pretty sure my edits were not disruptive, and someone was trigger happy

Decline reason:

You are required to provide an explanation in the edit summary when you remove content - as you were told 4 times -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not aware of any policies that require comments for the deletion of content. There are however guidelines that assume good faith, which was not excersised in this case

Decline reason:

Good faith was clearly given - the first couple of times. As per WP:CONSENSUS (and made even easier by reading the bold, revert, discuss cycle), not only were you uncommunicative, you were full-bore edit-warring to force your desired changes. The notifications and "warnings" above certainly did link you to requirements. AGF only lasts as long as your actions do not continue to violate core policies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is getting frustrating. There was no link to policy anywhere that states that comments are mandatory for content deletions. At no stage, was there ever a check to determine if I was being malicious or "disruptive". From the start, there was an assumption that because there was no comment, it must be a bad faith edit.

Decline reason:

Doing something over and over again, when told over and over again not to keep doing it, is pretty much the definition of disruptive. — Joseph Fox 13:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Exactly the same could be said for the user that kept reverting my valid edits.

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.174.108 (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Joseph Fox 13:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

203.19.128.226 (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 in the first place and
  • The block is still no longer necessary because I
    1. Don't know which policy I violated,
    2. Never caused disruptions in the first place (that was the people that mindlessly reverted my useful change), and
    3. I have always made useful contributions

Decline reason:

To address:

    1. You violated WP:3RR - to the tune of reverting 7 times in 20 minutes.
    2. Your edit-warring was disruptive.
    3. Your change was not useful, and even if it was, edit-warring is not. In fact, far from being constructive, your change was vandalism, therefore WP:3RR does not apply to those who remove it.
    4. In addition, you have been sockpuppeting to place these unblock requests on this page - I have blocked the IP used for that (115.64.174.108) for the duration of the block here. The Bushranger One ping only 16:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My edit wasn't vandalism. How is it vandalism? Because I remove content that was unencylopedic? Wikipedia is one of a massive number of sites that employ reverse proxy cache. The link to Wikipedia's implementation is completely arbitrary. How have I been sockpuppeting? It's an IP address. It's impossible to "log in" to another IP address. Also, I have never lost the ability to modify this user page, so there is no need for sock-puppeting (note where this request came from). Also, I never once claimed to be a different person, or even pretended to be a different person.

Decline reason:

Perhaps your edits were not vandalism, but this doesn't make edit-warring less disruptive. The block expires in ~30 hours or so; in the meantime you can reflect on the need to listen to warnings, to discuss when reverted and to use descriptive edit summaries when removing content (hint: ., .., ... and .... are not). Since this is the 6th unblock request that does not address the reason for your block, I'm removing your talk page access. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

April 2012

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Caret, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Caret was changed by 203.19.128.226 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866939 on 2012-04-27T12:09:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Seven minutes in heaven, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

March 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Elassint. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Jack Stockwell, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Elassint Hi 01:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:203.19.128.226&oldid=1144548529"