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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

First, warning templates are not "accusations". Second, anyone can see your edit history to know that your edits constitute vandalism for their disruptive and persistent nature, and that you have flagrantly broken civility guidelines in your edit reasons (and, now, in your attacks on me at this talkpage). Give it up, BKFIP. Kingsif (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2023 (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).

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)[reply]

Decline reason:

You never address the allegation that you are the best known for IP. You are banned. Find a new hobby. PhilKnight (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2023 (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.

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).

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:

What possible response could I give to an allegation that I did not even know about? Where is the allegation? What are the grounds for it? 82.2.156.181 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Just click the link to the nonexistent user page for this IP to see the block log. You don't need us to tell you who you are. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2023 (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.

See your block log. PhilKnight (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

link doesn't work. Why not just state clearly, with evidence, exactly what you are accusing me of? 82.2.156.181 (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month to prevent further vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.