en User talk:2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65

Talk page etiquette

(Crossposted at User talk:2A02:A46A:194C:0:E1CB:6288:72F8:196B)
Please read WP:TALKNEW. Per this guidepage, "Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page." You've been posting/moving your discussions to the top, contrary to standard practice. Continued disruption of these moves may result in a block, so please cease these moving actions that are contrary to Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking the rules. I, as a completely new user to wikipedia, am able to follow the rules. Why are you not able to? 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Hypersonic weapon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also. I didn't edit anything. I just gave feedback. If an expert gives you feedback, you take the feedback and thank them. You don't personally attack them. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 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 from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Vile abuse of power after harassing a new user by several veteran users, where the new user is the only one following the rules

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:29, 9 December 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.

2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Abusing moderation powers 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Good block. Expect the next one to be longer if your behavior persists. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 9 December 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.

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).

2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is literally no reason given for the block. And all previous unblock requests have not addressed anything. All I did is fix an error by adding back something that was falsely removed. I explained the edit before I did it on the talk page. The readded the info. Then, a user just undid the edit and ignored the talk page comment. I went to the talk page of this user, and explained them to not do this, and take a disagreement to the edit page. I then undid his undo. Then he deleted my comment from his own talk page, and undid the edit and locked the page I was editing. I then readded my comment to his talk page, and raised a new point about how he isn't supposed to start an edit war, and then block people if he is losing the edit page. They claim I am forced by rules to add my talk discussion on the bottom of their page. This is not true. It is a guideline. If they just replied to me and asked for me to add it to the bottom, instead of deleting, I probably would have moved it. They were not happy when I explained to them their own wikipedia rules. Then, I get threatened by other users, probably his friends, on my own talk page. And now I am blocked. All I did was add back info that was on wikipedia earlier, but falsely removed, explaining all my edits. Let me add even more info. Every used that did disuptive edits themselves, have now deleted my feedback from their talk page. These include: Zinnober9, Zenomonoz, Panamitsu and Primefac. There users deserve a 3 week block. They also have other users helping them clean up their own talk pages. I am fine with just giving them a warning. Floquenbeam should lose thier admin powers, as they did not review the block reason. Saying that I did disruptive edits, when I was just undoing them, is a lie. He never did any truthfinding. Significa liberdade deserves a warning for just posting a copypasta to boost his unblock review stats.

Decline reason:

This is ridiculous. I don't understand the fascination Wikipedia editors have with wasting their time arguing with trolls. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:13, 12 December 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.

2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that no reason was given; the reason for the block is, as I said here and in the block log, disruptive editing. Your comments on Primefac's talk page were not removed, they were moved to the bottom of the talk page. Several people explained this in edit summaries and above on this page. Primefac moved them to the bottom and replied to you. You were edit warring to insist on having your way on someone else's talk page. You claim to be new here, but feel comfortable telling other people what the rules are when you don't actually follow them yourself. That's just being a time sink. I'll leave the review of the block to someone else, of course, but I suggest admins not let this take up too much volunteer time; removing talk page access might be for the best. I'll have this talk page watchlisted, so if the behavior continues when the block expires, I'll reblock for a year. This is not a game of nomic. Stop wasting other people's time. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid disruptive edits. I did not do them myself. Did you even check this? I get why you would ban 1 unregistered user, who did just 1 CORRECT edit, rather than blocking 4 veteran users who have been on this site for years. Because it is easy to just block me, than get into the drama of having to accept that 4 veteran user have been harassing a new user. It is very easy to read the rules. Even if you are new. All I did was add back info that I copy-pasted FROM THE OLD VERSION and then read it, and explain my edit in talk. And I get all this absolute shit drama. Why? And you now THREATEN ME because you accuse ME of wasting YOUR TIME? Youj guys did this. All you had to do is keep the edit I did on the page. And then comment in talk that you disagreed with it. And if enough people disagree, then you can go and undo my edit. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add even more info. Every used that did disuptive edits themselves, have now deleted my feedback from their talk page. These include: Zinnober9, Zenomonoz, Panamitsu and Primefac. There users deserve a 3 week block. They also have other users helping them clean up their own talk pages. I am fine with just giving them a warning. Floquenbeam should lose thier admin powers, as they did not review the block reason. Saying that I did disruptive edits, when I was just undoing them, is a lie. He never did any truthfinding. Significa liberdade deserves a warning for just posting a copypasta to boost his unblock review stats. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you have been undoing disruptive edits. I checked the first three: in every case you were reverting a good edit. We don't have "unblock review stats", by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And my responses to you are also being edited. How can I appeal an unblock if my appeals are being edited? Either just ban me without a sham appeal process 'because it wastes other people's time'. Or just unblock me. So I can undo the vandalism and disruptive edits. Because for sure, no one else is doing that right now. 2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New posts to the bottom, please. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear block-evading editor: I did look into your edits. They were disruptive, not helpful. Knock it off. -- asilvering (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected this page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]