User talk:190.163.4.132

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.163.4.132) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't let you insult other editors. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only wish people would be equally willing to block the editors who have spent so long attacking me and destroying my work for no good reason. I think reverting for no good reason with false accusations is far, far more damaging to the encyclopaedia that calling someone an "idiot" ever could be, but perhaps we disagree on that. Good night. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing in violation of a block (actually several). You are making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Boo hoo. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC) (a.k.a. the "fucking retarded little cunt")[reply]

And so you turn up to taunt me. You disruptively reverted masses of my edits, restoring false information to prominent articles, while making dishonest accusations at the same time. And apparently you feel proud enough of that to turn up here and taunt me. You are a true asset to Wikipedia. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And once again you are working tirelessly to restore copyright violations, factual errors and basic mistakes to articles. Well done, you. Well done. *claps wildly*. The reputation Wikipedia has for reliability and integrity is thanks to people like you.

By the way, falsely accusing someone of being banned, just so that you can thrill yourself by undoing their edits, is a grievous personal attack. I wait expectantly for someone to tell you that you shouldn't have done that, and for an apology from you. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So go on, why not restore the incorrect use of first names to those tennis articles? Your mission is to provoke me as much as possible, right? Without regard to the quality of the encyclopaedia? So why are you holding back? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing archives

I saw this edit and wondered if you really meant to edit archives which is a waste of time and whether you meant to say "I have used more than one account, never used even one account" because, just to me, this appears a little self-contradictory given your recent rampage through Wikipedia under the current IP correcting "obvious" errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I was editing an archive in the edit summary. Did you read that? I did unfortunately miss out a "never", however. I am not sure how not using an account would be contradictory with the statement that I have never used an account, and I am not sure why you would use the pejorative term "rampage" and put the word obvious in scare quotes to describe my edits. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European Research Council may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The European Research Council] (ERC) is a pan-European research funding organisation. It was created by the EU in 2007.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The article in question, BBC Canada, was previously edit protected due to edits made in defiance of a block by this IP user, the "Best known for IP". I would strongly suggest that the user discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion WP:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for [[WP::Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP repeated block evaison]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:05, 26 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The usual claim of disruptive editing - not true, never has been. As usual, false accusations are not just tolerated but encouraged.190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As has been made clear before in previous blocks, you are blocked for block evasion. I've customized the standard block notification template to be more specific to your case. I hope that is satisfactory. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 26 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Indeed, the least one could hope for is basic honesty in the message to people you're going to block. As for this block: "you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". They could just have a look at my edits and see that none of them damaged or disrupted Wikipedia. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 6:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

~~Perhaps in the meantime, someone would like to convey to this user that I accept their apology, and instruct them in the basic practice of not reverting for no reason. 190.163.4.132 (talk)~~ Perhaps someone would like to tell that user that posting some kind of "apology" on their talk page in which they dishonestly made it look as if I had signed their comment, and then immediately afterwards reverting two more edits for no reason is extremely offensive and damaging. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable trolling

And so the trolling continues, as always. The repetitive refusals to unblock which expect me to prove a negative must be jolly good fun for the admins concerned. An admin protecting the noticeboard page and applying a range block specifically to prevent me from continuing the discussion, just as it was beginning to appear productive - that was very good work. The continuing effort of User:SummerPhD to restore nonsense to the encyclopaedia is amusing to watch, as is their descent into ever more infantile language to try to justify what they are doing. And their continuing lies about vandalism, showing that they don't understand what it is, or that they are simply trying to provoke me even more, or most likely both. And their behaviour encourages more trolls to join in the hilarity, of course. Now we have a brand new editor moronically reverting my work, and altering their talk page to falsely imply that I said something. And we have User:Epicgenius who must have enjoyed restoring a copyright violation very much. And not just any copyright violation but a spectacularly badly written and unencyclopaedic one as well. Plainly, his intention is not to improve the encyclopaedia. Leaving this truly bizarre and confused edit summary surely tickled him greatly as well. And his belief that the MOS can be ignored under the brave assumption that English speakers will find Dutch, French and Spanish articles useful... what can one say. If someone created the articles for which a Spanish one exists, I'd translate them, but obviously people with particular mentalities would then undo that work repeatedly over many months.

And then there's Wee Curry Monster, ranting about persecution complexes. A persecution complex is a belief in persecution where none exists. Wee Curry Monster did not understand the grammar of a sentence, so rather than ask about it or try to improve it, he simply reverted it, and then stalked my edits to all the unrelated articles I'd been working on and reverted them all, with no explanation other than edit summaries like "rv IP edits". And then he has the cheek to dishonestly claim to "have gone to extra lengths to explain myself to him", while denigrating my contributions, and claiming that I have a persecution complex. Is he deliberately trolling or is it just that he's so inept he doesn't even realise what he's doing?

So, well, there we were, trying to resolve things fairly, and someone decided they knew better than everyone else what was required in the situation, and blocked me and protected the page. No-one questioned them about that so I take it that people prefer to carry on as before. If people really want to spend nearly four months fighting to support the destructive trolling of User:AlanS and his ilk, then so be it, let's carry on doing things like that. If it gives you so much satisfaction to waste your time undoing my work in a deliberate effort to harm the encyclopaedia, then you'd better just carry on, hadn't you.

Thanks to the two administrators who seemed to understand that years of constant baiting and attacks don't bring out the best in people. Sorry that you were outnumbered by the people who enjoy the baiting. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript

My rule of wikipedia is that complaining about false accusations of vandalism will generate at least three further false accusations. And now it appears that a complaint about trolling will result in yet more trolling. Fun for everyone, I guess. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.