User talk:31.161.148.196

Altering posts

You should not really alter a post after it has been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting a lot of edit conflicts, wich one are you referring to? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This one [[1]] made 4 minutes after my post.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There aren't any substantive changes in that one. I was still copy-pasting from the TOS and typing when you replied. That's why I got the edit conflict. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

PA#s

Note that making comments like this [[2]] too often can lead to blocks. Please read WP:NPA, it does not win friends or influence people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not an insult or an attack. I'm just saying I'm done discussing with his behaviour, he clearly stated that he would not wait for consent. I'm done with him, I won't interfere when he starts deleting. He is stalking me and called me a spammer earlier today. But obviously you can't commit a personal attack against an IP user. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And "boomer" added to this how?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No, not boomer. I said: "Ok boomer". That's not the same as calling someone a baby boomer. It's directed at a certain behaviour or attitude and being fed up with that kind of behaviour. It's not an insult, it means end of discussion. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I am warning you, use it again and we shall see what ANI says.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You are not warning me, you are threatening me. That's a violation for which you could be held accountable. If you don't understand the concept of argumentum ad hominem then don't accuse people of using one. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Saopbox

Also you might want to read wp:soap your last post as RSN read very much like that.Slatersteven (talk)

Also do you have a wp:COI with Leafly as your attitude says you might do?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Soapbox? Can you explain? Cause the article does not apply to me. Are you asking the registred user the same or just me because I am not logged in? I'm not even allowed to read Leafly according to the user. You have to be North American. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Soapbox "and in the future you will be proved wrong" is soapboxing.

COI No I am asking you to read wp:coi and then say if you have one or not. It says nothing about being north American (by the way, I suggest you read my user page), nor that you have to be a registered user. What I am asking if do you have any affiliation with Leafy, do you have a connection with them? Nor do I recall anyone saying you cannot read Leafy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also wp:spa may be worth a read, as your sole purpose here (up to this point) have been to try and insert Leafy links.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/media/cms/hemp_statement_A8AFF8F160A43.pdf and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/01/cannabis-medical-cannabidiol-cbd-uk-consumers are leafly links? I think you are reading VERY selectivly. Please read slowly and don't just read what you want to read. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, try not to quote me out of context please... 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough you have been warned. If you ignore this on your head be it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Warned? I don't see where you are going with this, do you have a wp:COI with cannabis?

Please note that wp:spa is not a guideline, it is an opinion. I am not logged in so even if it was a guideline, it would not have applied at all. I will not use passwords on a public WIFI. I don't have to, so please do not be biased towards IP-users. If you are giving me a warning then be clear about it. Are you accusing me of Sock puppetry? if not, then what am I warned about?

PS If you don't recall anyone saying you'd have to be from North America to access Leafly, you can refresh your memory here. I'd rather not have this conversation. It does not seem relevant at this point. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

When you launch an ANI you are supposed to inform the target, you have not even said who it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 17:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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 reviewed|No reason for block has been provided|decline= A reason has been provided, disruptive editing. In examining your edit history I would concur. Please address this in an unblock request should you choose to make another. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

No evidence of violating a guideline has been provided. A user with multiple accounts is harrasing me and trying to influence the outcome of an RFC by falsly accusing me of working for Leafly.com and being a single purpose sock puppet. This user has also made several personal attacks calling me a spammer and a troll. I have requested action against him and his accounts. Please explain how requesting action against abuse equals disruptive editing

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=No evidence of violating a guideline has been provided. A user with multiple accounts is harrasing me and trying to influence the outcome of an RFC by falsly accusing me of working for Leafly.com and being a single purpose sock puppet. This user has also made several personal attacks calling me a spammer and a troll. I have requested action against him and his accounts. Please explain how requesting action against abuse equals disruptive editing |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=No evidence of violating a guideline has been provided. A user with multiple accounts is harrasing me and trying to influence the outcome of an RFC by falsly accusing me of working for Leafly.com and being a single purpose sock puppet. This user has also made several personal attacks calling me a spammer and a troll. I have requested action against him and his accounts. Please explain how requesting action against abuse equals disruptive editing |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=No evidence of violating a guideline has been provided. A user with multiple accounts is harrasing me and trying to influence the outcome of an RFC by falsly accusing me of working for Leafly.com and being a single purpose sock puppet. This user has also made several personal attacks calling me a spammer and a troll. I have requested action against him and his accounts. Please explain how requesting action against abuse equals disruptive editing |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}