User talk:90.203.45.168: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:48, 18 January 2008

Personal Attack

I am afraid that I do not know what you are talking about (personal attacks). I have never met you before, and there is nothing on your talk page apart from this message! Sorry, can't help! Dewarw (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Wars

I'm quite frankly fed up of our edit wars and it's affecting the quality of Wikipedia. Could you perhaps state your objections (specifically, not just POV) to my edits on my talk page or the talk page of the article before you revert them and I'll do the same. Thank you Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been blocked for 24hrs due to 3RR and other revert wars on Valley Lines and elsewhere. --AlisonW (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

(not really an unblock request) Please also consider blocking User:Welshleprechaun, whose constant POV editing and ignorance of warnings has led to the alleged "warring". See also here for relevant evidence.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

I'll not unblock you for the present as you have appeared to be 'chasing' User:Welshleprechaun over quite a number of articles engaging in revertion or deletion without discussion. I acknowledge that User:Welshleprechaun has also reverted yourself, however a user is permitted to revert IP vandalism and, without evidence to the contrary, many of your edits do appear to be in that category. I haven't reverted all of them though and I shall watch the articles concerned for acceptable behaviour (or otherwise) by both of you. --AlisonW (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I've looked at the 'evidence' you have cited and whilst it doesn't change my opinion / decision above, I shall take it on board. Could I suggest that you register yourself on Wikipedia so that you can get a good reputation (or otherwise, obviously!) without creating problems by solely using an IP address for editing. This would also aid you personally. --AlisonW (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've guessing an apostrophe went missing in this comment. I am an editor of some 6 years or more. I do have an account, and actively choose not to use it, specifically because of the actions of editors such as User:Welshleprechaun. I must reiterate that I am not requesting that this IP be unblocked, and merely wished to draw attention to the actions of the user whose disruption I was trying to undo. I still maintain that something needs to be done as regards User:Welshleprechaun, as he has ignored several warnings for disruption. If you are unwilling to act on this yourself, would you at least be willing to bring this to the attention of other admins? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific evidence of vandalism from this IP. I have provided evidence of User:Welshleprechaun's constant disruptive behaviour, and I believe you've caught the wrong end of the stick here. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one I blocked for was your four reverts in quick succession on Valley Lines. --AlisonW (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide specific evidence of vandalism. I don't see any breach of 3RR there. Please also explain why User:Welshleprechaun, who is the one actually engaging in tendentious editing is not also blocked. I am happy to accept not being unblocked, but I feel a little annoyed that I am being punished for undoing the damange. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct myself slightly; they only appear to be quick succession as the edit war is the only recent activity on the article. I'll still leave the block in place for the moment though as other unexplained reverting is also around. --AlisonW (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason only you are blocked - for the moment - and not others, eg User:Welshleprechaun - is because there is a policy that IP-only editors are presumed at fault and logged-in editors given the benefit in such circumstances. As I've noted above there are options available to you to remove that particular issue and I and other admins will be noting what happens on these articles generally by all editors. --AlisonW (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is that? As far as I was aware, policy was that all editors are on an equal footing. Did you actually review the evidence posted at ANI showing the considerable disruption caused by User:Welshleprechaun? I can't find anything in my own contributions that meets our definitions of vandalism, but in the diffs I have provided, I see addition of inaccuracies, userspace vandalism, abuse of tags, and malicious edit summaries. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I've looked at the 'evidence' you have cited and whilst it doesn't change my opinion / decision above, I shall take it on board. Could I suggest that you register yourself on Wikipedia so that you can get a good reputation (or otherwise, obviously!) without creating problems by solely using an IP address for editing. This would also aid you personally. --AlisonW (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've guessing an apostrophe went missing in this comment. I am an editor of some 6 years or more. I do have an account, and actively choose not to use it, specifically because of the actions of editors such as User:Welshleprechaun. I must reiterate that I am not requesting that this IP be unblocked, and merely wished to draw attention to the actions of the user whose disruption I was trying to undo. I still maintain that something needs to be done as regards User:Welshleprechaun, as he has ignored several warnings for disruption. If you are unwilling to act on this yourself, would you at least be willing to bring this to the attention of other admins? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I have just written

In one sense I would write that you both seem to be as bad as each other and should *talk* first on the article discussion pages concerned, indeed although it is some years since I lived in Cardiff I can see that you both represent the same issues differently. Might I suggest that you *both* discuss these matters before *either* of you edit this group of articles again? otherwise the repercussions might be more serious. --AlisonW (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to User:Welshleprechaun. I would strongly suggest you both *talk* first before doing anything more. As such I am unblocking you for the moment, but will not hesitate to reinstate if I see article edit warring starting straight up again. --AlisonW (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you don't seem to understand why you've been banned. I'll tell you why, just look at the most recent message you left on my talk page. Rather than trying to work with other users to maintain Wikipedia's high quality and standards, you'd rather be stubborn and think you know better than administrators. Or if not, maybe you are actually a vandal and can't provide any answers to my request of specifying what you see wrong with my edits. Now that you have been blocked, I hope you will quickly see the error of your ways. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmn. Welshleprechaun; you are not being helpful here. Please both of you try not to antagonise each other, but work together as you both clearly have knowledge to offer. --AlisonW (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that comment wasn't sarcastic. The rail line infoboxes do include Terminus even if services do not terminate at that particular station the majority of the time. This is seen on many other railway station pages (maybe not 100s though) Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Lines

The reason I reverted Valley Lines is to clarify the routes because the Vale and Merthyr Lines each split into two. What formatting are you working by? Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this anon user blocked

This IP address accused me of personal attack, even though I had never come across them before! It is obviously used by spammers. Btline 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ==Valley Lines==
 The reason I reverted Valley Lines is to clarify the routes because the Vale and Merthyr Lines each split into two. What ''formatting'' are you working by? [[User:Welshleprechaun|Welshleprechaun]] ([[User talk:Welshleprechaun|talk]]) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
+== Keep this anon user blocked ==
+This IP address accused me of personal attack, even though I had never come across them before! It is obviously used by spammers. [[User talk:Btline|Btline]] 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)