User talk:86.146.244.124

Attention:

This IP address, 86.146.244.124, is registered to BT Central, UK. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report.

If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time.

If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

Disruptive editing[edit]

Moving your disruptive edits at Babe to another machine in the same range puts the whole range at risk of being blocked if the nuisance persists. Please stop your vandalism. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 16:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=Edits in question were not vandalism. See [1] 86.146.244.124 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Edits in question were not vandalism. See [2] 86.146.244.124 (talk) 12:47 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

per request. Watchlisted to see how it goes from here. Alexf^(talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, your Plot summary was 710 Words, Per WP:FILMPLOT Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Chip3004 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going 10 words over the plot summary word limit is not vandalism.

I too fail to understand what was vandalism here. This is at worst disruptive editing, not vandalism; Sweetpool50 and Alexf, could you please explain to me what was the vandalism? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone needs to look up WP:VANDALISM. Good faith edits that fall afoul of some rule or another are not vandalism. Also, there were inadequate warnings given. I do not block w/o adequate warnings except in very egregious circumstances. @Chip3004: I fail to understand the need for those reverts. WP:BRD? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf: Unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Unblocked and watchlisted. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chip3004 agreed to stop recent changes patrolling because of difficulty recognizing vandalism in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Zealous reversions and odd interactions with Chip3004. It looks like this has started up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my book the edits verged on disruption. When warned that their edits were without summary, the editor reverted back to their preferred version, again without summary or attempt at discussion. When a second editor reverted them, they switched to another server...without summary once more. This history demonstrates a warrior mentality and a disinclination to edit in co-operation with others. The block was justified for the health of Wikipedia and one hopes the editor will learn from the experience. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken and this has not started up again. I had an good Reason for reverting this [3], I copied the entire plot to microsoft word to see how many words were used it was really 710 words, I made an gramor Error In my edit summary Chip3004 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anything suggests a "warrior mentality", it's blanket reverting everything that doesn't have an edit summary. It has already been pointed out to you that this is not legitimate grounds for removing an edit. See: WP:NOTVAND.

January 2023[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tony Eccles have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Tony Eccles was changed by 86.146.244.124 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956912 on 2023-01-07T23:48:33+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tony Eccles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2023 (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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tony Eccles, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit is not disruptive. Try reading the article.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tony Eccles. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article was, in fact, convicted of rape. Wikipelli ^Talk 00:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An accurate description of a convicted criminal is not vandalism. Please read the article before interfering again.

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.