User talk:82.2.156.181

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lucy Bronze, you may be blocked from editing. Removing sources and relevant BASICINFO, especially with no explanation and comments like "appalling", "nauseating", "nonsensical" – and (of course) the classic excuse of just fixing grammar – constitutes severe vandalism. Maybe there are some good edits to improve grammar in there, feel free to make those improvements, but large-scale removal and a clearly anti- view are not welcome on Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I explained all my edits, and very obviously none of them were vandalism. Going around making false accusations like that is a really disgusting way to behave. 82.2.156.181 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you are to continue editing, your edit reasons need to be much less brazenly spiteful towards article subjects, content, and editors. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

And more false accusations. 82.2.156.181 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked without warning, for no apparent reason, other than possibly the obviously false accusation of vandalism made above. I see that on two articles that I've edited recently, my major improvements have been pointlessly undone, reintroducing massively problematic material to the articles. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and falsely accusing users of it when you simply don't like or haven't understood their edit is extremely disruptive. The user who made the false accusation and thus caused two articles to be severely harmed should be blocked until they show that they understand what vandalism actually is. There is plenty of precedent for such action. 82.2.156.181 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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=I've been blocked without warning, for no apparent reason, other than possibly the obviously false accusation of vandalism made above. I see that on two articles that I've edited recently, my major improvements have been pointlessly undone, reintroducing massively problematic material to the articles. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and falsely accusing users of it when you simply don't like or haven't understood their edit is extremely disruptive. The user who made the false accusation and thus caused two articles to be severely harmed should be blocked until they show that they understand what vandalism actually is. There is plenty of precedent for such action. [[Special:Contributions/82.2.156.181|82.2.156.181]] ([[User talk:82.2.156.181#top|talk]]) 23:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |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=I've been blocked without warning, for no apparent reason, other than possibly the obviously false accusation of vandalism made above. I see that on two articles that I've edited recently, my major improvements have been pointlessly undone, reintroducing massively problematic material to the articles. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and falsely accusing users of it when you simply don't like or haven't understood their edit is extremely disruptive. The user who made the false accusation and thus caused two articles to be severely harmed should be blocked until they show that they understand what vandalism actually is. There is plenty of precedent for such action. [[Special:Contributions/82.2.156.181|82.2.156.181]] ([[User talk:82.2.156.181#top|talk]]) 23:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |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=I've been blocked without warning, for no apparent reason, other than possibly the obviously false accusation of vandalism made above. I see that on two articles that I've edited recently, my major improvements have been pointlessly undone, reintroducing massively problematic material to the articles. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and falsely accusing users of it when you simply don't like or haven't understood their edit is extremely disruptive. The user who made the false accusation and thus caused two articles to be severely harmed should be blocked until they show that they understand what vandalism actually is. There is plenty of precedent for such action. [[Special:Contributions/82.2.156.181|82.2.156.181]] ([[User talk:82.2.156.181#top|talk]]) 23:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

---