| Revision as of 21:04, 25 December 2014 editYngvadottir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users50,628 edits →Unblocked: and your opinion has just been requested← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:32, 2 November 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| Season's greetings, ] and ]. Appreciate your thoughts on more , , , . Thanks as always. ] (]) 16:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And Good Yule to you. I was just wondering whether you'd been editing recently :-) I've started looking at the first link but I see it'll take me a while to get up to speed. Thanks for the ping, I will get to it. ] (]) 16:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *And the same to you. I'm in a tight spot, time-wise, given the holidays and all so I can't promise much, but I'll see what I can do. ] (]) 18:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::. The long term harassment by SummerPhD is ridiculous, and it must surely be time for sanctions. ] (]) 18:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have dropped a note on Summer PhD's talk, which should hopefully calm things down a bit. Drmies, you should have popped round here yesterday, I'd happily have taken the kids along with mine to watch '']'', provided they didn't want the loo every 30 minutes. ] ] ] 18:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for doing that. I appreciate it very much. ] (]) 00:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Looks like it's been resolved at that article, thanks to {{U|Ritchie333}}, although as usual I felt compelled to tinker with the article myself, and I may go back and neaten up the references some more. FWIW I agree we're better off without "best known for" in that case. I note the AIV complaint has been put on ice. But please avoid accusations of trolling etc.; those are attack words. ] (]) 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your time. SummerPhD intends to stalk and harass me at every possible opportunity; that is clear. That is obviously trolling. I would like it to stop, I've asked repeatedly for them to stop their disruptive behaviour and I believe you have as well, but they continue to stalk and harass. Time someone took some action, wouldn't you say? ] (]) 00:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've just been pinged by her to stop you from personally attacking her, but I see the attached diff is to an edit here from before my statement. Please keep to the high road and don't use attack words like "trolling" and she should then stop what you object to, except for the ongoing disagreement about "best known for", which is best resolved on an individual article basis, as it was here. ] (]) 17:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They are not going to stop their behaviour, obviously. People have asked them to stop harassing me several times, to no effect whatsoever. It certainly counts as trolling. If they don't want to be called a troll, they should stop continuously leaving of ridiculous messages on my talk page when I have asked them many times to stay away; stop stalking my edits and making unhelpful "contributions" such as we saw on the shipping page; and stop posting vexatious vandalism reports. This is trolling. It has to stop. Also I don't understand why you seem to be suggesting I was ever a vandal . You know that's utterly untrue. | |||
| ::::And are you happy with the false accusation of vandalism that I removed with this edit, which was the second from this user? As yet, they appear not to have warned about making disgusting claims like this. ] (]) 18:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You did undertake not to make personal attacks. Dial it back a notch, please. I see now that you have restored it a few times; she's seen it, that's enough. I have been pleased to see that the heat around your edits has died down considerably, but calling people names is going to stoke it up again no matter the merits of your case on various articles. No, I am not suggesting you were a vandal; you were however known by that specific label, which I included so the editor who made the inquiry can look up the AN/I discussions and see the background. No, FWIW, I'm not happy you were templated, especially since the article talk page discussion had then come to an end. But you do need to step back from making personal attacks now. ] (]) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I never was known by that specific label, which I find extremely offensive. Starting or perpetuating its use is tantamount to accusing me of vandalism. As I understood it, some kind of action against false accusations of vandalism was what I was requesting and what was offered. Well, someone made two false accusations of vandalism here, and no-one did anything about it despite my request. You've been very helpful in the past but all you've done in response this time is invent a label for me that implies that I am or was a vandal. And SummerPhD is trolling, plain and simple. I outlined their disruptive behaviour already. If you think I'm making a personal attack, then you must believe that they are trying to be productive, and you can go ahead and block me. Looks like we're back to me being attacked relentlessly for making sensible edits, with the acceptance and encouragement of the community. ] (]) 00:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I hope not. I'm happy to see your view has been accepted in a number of cases. I'll step back and ping {{U|Drmies}}. ] (]) 00:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: from a user who has taken it upon themselves to start harassing me. Who is going to do something about it? ] (]) 01:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I see Drmies has. I won't ping him again because he's got Xmas stuff to do. ] (]) 02:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverting == | |||
| Hello! I came here because, as you correctly noticed, you were reported to ]. While your edits do not constitute vandalism, I would like to point out that they '''do''' constitute "edit warring." I would strongly encourage you to read the ] which adheres to edit warring- this applies to any page, and even if you may in fact be right! The best way to find that out is through discussion, and not through continuing a cycle of reverts. Similarly, if someone reverts a change you made, don't get into a cycle of reverting with them- bring the issue to the talk page and discuss it there. Yes, you may in fact be right, but the way that you prove that here isn't through a cycle of reverting, but through talk page discussion. I'm not going to block you in response to the report- I can't see anything you've done that's actually vandalism- but I hope you will take my words about talking instead of reverting under consideration.--] (]) 01:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your message. I was being falsely accused by someone who was removing my comments from a third person's talk page - not much chance of talk page discussion about that really. Cheers anyway. ] (]) 02:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == 48 hour block == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 16:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| :What abuse? ] (]) 16:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Reason for this block == | |||
| The following recent behaviour taken together is the reason for this block. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ** Someone reverted because they didn't understand core policies, and they later falsely accused me of vandalism. Indeed, I should not have reverted as many times as I did, but you seem unaware that that was several days ago. Blocking now is petty in the extreme, and strangely enough you have not even so much as warned the other party who reverted as many times as I did. | |||
| * | |||
| ** Someone reverted for no reason, left a dishonest edit summary and then falsely accused me of vandalism. But you didn't bother to understand that situation, did you? | |||
| * | |||
| ** Good faith? No, as I outlined already, they are stalking and trolling me and despite numerous warnings they have refused to stop. You didn't bother to understand that situation either, did you? | |||
| ** And you decided to blunder into these situations and apply your petty one-sided block in your shameful ignorance because you were asked to do so by someone who has been harassing and trolling me for quite some time. I thought they'd given up on it but it appears not. So we're back to the situation where harassment and stalking is not just tolerated but actively encouraged. I hope you're proud of your part in that. ] (]) 18:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Note to other admins === | |||
| Feel free to unblock without contacting me. ] (]) 17:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unblocked== | |||
| After consultation with the blocking admin (see above statement by {{U|PhilKnight}}), I have unblocked. IP editor, please take it to the article talk page sooner and bear in mind my earlier admonitions about calling people names. I'm trusting you to try harder to be civil and not to edit war. ] (]) 20:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ... and Walter Görlitz has just asked at ] what you think of my edit to the lede. ] (]) 21:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:32, 2 November 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.