User talk:212.178.216.30

Hello! Please note that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been designated a "Good Article" and the article was passed with the content you are trying to remove. If you feel that strongly about removing the content, please start a conversation on the article talk page and wait to gain consensus before reverting again. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I have created a new section on the talk page for the article you've recently edited. Please feel free to visit the page and participate in the discussion. Operator873^CONNECT 02:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as done at User talk:Operator873.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2017 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

Ridiculous. Other people were editing my comments to change their meaning, in obvious violation of talk page guidelines, which say in bold never to do that. It is nonsensical to block me for trying to stop others from editing my words in that way. 212.178.216.30 (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you make personal attacks on someone, don't be surprised when they get removed. The only "editing" was to a section header, and the person on whose talk page you were making those personal attacks has every right to do that. All other "editing" was, in fact, the removal of your personal attacks, that you then edit-warred to attempt to restore while calling the people removing those attacks trolls. Sorry, but with that continuing behavior you aren't going to be getting a shorter block, and if it resumes when the block expires you're going to be facing a considerably longer one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 3 November 2017 (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.

And how strange! The people who edited my words to change their meaning 16 times between them seem not to have been punished for that! It's almost as if there is a group of trolls at work. 212.178.216.30 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Seems like you didn't understand the situation. A user edited my words to change their meaning. That is specifically not allowed by the talk page guidelines. This followed them falsely accusing me of not leaving an edit summary - a petty and pointless action, indeed a personal attack, which I naturally complained about. They themselves could remove my comment but they cannot edit it to change its meaning. A third party with nothing to do with the situation then edited my comments. No talk page guidelines permit random passers by to disrupt anyone's talk page. In total, three entirely unrelated users removed my comments from a talk page. There is no guideline or policy that permits anyone to do that. The person whose talk page it was could remove my comment but they cannot edit it to change its meaning. They did the latter, and at no point did they do the former. Edit warring is specifically about article content disputes, and blocking someone for objecting when unrelated third parties delete their comments is utterly ridiculous. No punishment for the people editing my comments tells me that this is a group trolling effort, an act simply about pestering someone, condoned and encouraged by administrators. That really is pathetic.

Decline reason:

You edit-warred personal attacks into a user talk page and want to wikilawyer about who removed them? That's not going to get you unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2017 (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 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.