User talk:210.3.136.74

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at User_talk:Smasongarrison. Mason (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Block seems to be in error as I was not editing in an unconstructive manner210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For example, see the edit history at User talk:220.233.199.77. Further disruption will result in longer block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2024 (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.

You were indiscriminately engaging in mass reverts and issuing warnings left and right. As far as I can tell no explanation was offered for any of these and you never used an edit summary. I am seriously considering mass reverting all of your recent edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean "I never used an edit summary"?! I clearly stated the level of warning I was providing each time and the name of the article it related to. All the details on the page/edit were present in the templates used to warn the bad editors. Please don't spread lies about me. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use an edit summary for any of your reverts, although clearly you know what one is and can use one. " respond to BS". So why am I a "bad editor" on this edit for [1] Olga Forsh? Mason (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you talking about?! The undo button autopopulates an edit summary explaining which revision is being rolled back, and the fact that it is getting rolled back. Claiming that is the same as not providing an edit summary (which is not required anyway) is extremely disingenuous and further proof that you are indeed a "bad editor". As for the edit you've linked, you can clearly see that you were removing a valid category from a number of pages. This is vandalism, and the fact that you've shamelessly continued in this manner and then resorted to attacking me is frankly shocking. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly you're not Wikipedia:NOTHERE. If diffusing categories per diffusion, is shameless and shocking, then I think you need to recalibrate. Mason (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well you're in the wrong and that you're the one vandalizing articles and removing content. To have the nerve to describe me as WP:NOTHERE is little more than projection, pure and simple. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.... no. Diffusing soviet women novelists from soviet women writers isn't vandalism. You're not making a good case for an unblock. Mason (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And your stubbornness here is making a great case for why YOU should be indeffed. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all of your unexplained recent edits. This was nakedly disruptive and if you do anything like it again, your next block will be a very long one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not disruptive, and many of those edits were bad and needed reverting (any that weren't were unintentionally reverted, so for that at least I apologise). I'd suggest you do a closer inspection rather than blindly revert. Also, your threat of a longer block is totally uncalled for, please respect WP:BITE. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison & 210.3.136.74 I have opened a request for review of this at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I do appreciate this. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine with me. I think you've acted reasonably, and they're spinning a yarn.Mason (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per above I'm also totally cool with this as I feel the same way about you! 210.3.136.74 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.