User talk:ControItheDogs

Your edits

Can you please explain on what grounds you are making multiple reverts like this: [1]. If you cannot provide an adequate explanation, you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. You're not an admin,

2. Said user was tagging multiple IPs as being 'shared' when they were in fact dynamic. In addition, was going overboard with the amount of template tags. ControItheDogs (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I'm an admin or not is of no relevance whatsoever. And who is the 'said user'? You have reverted at least two different contributors. If you think what they are doing is wrong, I suggest you contact them on their talk pages, rather than engaging in a rather petty edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I second AndyTheGrump. Please don't remove these tags - if you think they are wrong, give a good reason why. Many thanks. James^x1 2345 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the shared IP templates. If you remove another one you will be blocked from editing. If you have concerns let's discuss it here. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not shared though, they're dynamic. That's why when they're false, they're to be removed. Also this is ridiculous to get in wars over templates. ControItheDogs (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic means they could change. But in the process they could also be used my multiple users. There's no reason to remove the templates. Since you won't stop and discuss, you've been blocked from editing. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already stopped to discuss, people just weren't listening. Read here "is believed to be a static address used by only one connection". That's false when the Whois data shows to be dynamic address. You follow? ControItheDogs (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've upped the block to indefinite as a

Confirmed returning disruptive user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]