User talk:80.189.156.145

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (80.189.156.145) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! JC7V (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Because your edit is disputed, please use the WP:BRD cycle. If you make a change to a stable version of the article, and it is reverted, then you should not revert. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the change you wish to make. If you get consensus there, fine, make the change. If not, then the change you wish cannot happen. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone undoes an edit I make and explains why they did so, we can have a discussion and move forward. If they undo several of my edits and don't once give an explanation, we can't have a discussion and we can't move forward. So go explain things to the person who was doing that and stop pestering me. 80.189.156.145 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the way it works is that someone can undo edits just for the hell of it, and the lucky punter they picked on will get blocked for complaining. Nice! 80.189.156.145 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Someone decided to undo several of my edits for no reason at all. I asked them to stop doing that. They have yet to offer any explanation. There was no edit warring to speak of. Some other people decided, ridiculously, to complain about me complaining about the person undoing my edit for no reason. And now you've just blocked me for no reason! 80.189.156.145 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you say that you "asked them to stop doing that", you're referring to the uncivil messages you left such as this one, this one, and this one - correct? Your reverts to both the article and the user talk pages of the editors that you left these messages on absolutely constituted edit warring and were completely unnecessary and disruptive - and all over something that you should have resolved properly instead of trying to point fingers and make bad-faith accusations that the other users who reverted your edits were "playing games"... Because of this, I am declining your unblock request. You'll be allowed to make positive contributions that are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when your block expires. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:58, 17 December 2018 (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.

Please read:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am, of course, familiar with them. Please read WP:REVEXP and WP:AGF. Also check my edits. Seems to me you haven't bothered to look at them at all. 80.189.156.145 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Morning Has Broken#Popular and well-known. I would be happy to unblock you right now if you promise to be civil and not edit war. That discussion favours your position. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The person who decided to attack me has reverted the same four of my obviously uncontroversial and positive edits, for no reason, once again, and neither you nor anyone else has bothered to say a single thing to him. Instead, you've decided that pestering and blocking me for complaining about being pestered is the way to go. So no, I am not going to kowtow and plead for forgiveness. Aggressively seeking a lickspittle attitude from IPs while turning a blind eye to pointless disruption from named accounts is not going to get you a high quality encyclopaedia. 80.189.156.145 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. And this is about your revert war here and nothing else. And if you get reverted 4 times by two different editors, then by definition, your edit was controversial and not considered positive. You say people attack you, but tell them to f^^^ o^^^. You talk about being aggressive, and your edits are. You talk about disruption of others, yet your edits are disruptive. Please, just stop and be constructive and collegial when you return. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was being constructive and collegial! And then someone decided to undo my edits for NO REASON!! If there was ANY REASON AT ALL for that particular edit to be reverted, I'd be glad to hear it and discuss it. THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY REASON!!

When an editor repeatedly posted pestering messages on my talk page, after removing my messages to the person reverting me for no reason, I indeed removed their messages with an edit summary saying fuck off. If you're getting seriously harassed by multiple users for having the temerity to make an obviously uncontroversial edit and then mildly complaining when someone undid it for no reason, you might do the same, I would imagine.

None of my edits were disruptive. Making a good edit is not disruptive. Undoing it repeatedly and never once bothering to give a reason is. So who do you attack? Why, the good editor, of course! 80.189.156.145 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WP:LTA/BKFIP, by any chance? The general behaviour is extremely similar. —Wasell^(T) 09:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, you may be right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just amazing the level of insults that doing good work triggers, isn't it. 80.189.156.145 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's up in the air whether this editor is best known for removing the phrase "best know for" or for their … um … style, but it seems clear to me who (or is that "whom"? I never did quite sort that one out) we are dealing with. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0, thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2018 (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.