Jump to content

User talk:67.40.202.59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2024

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Peanuts Movie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Foxtrot620. I noticed that you recently removed content from He's a Bully, Charlie Brown without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You removed a reliable source without an explanation as to why. Please include Edit summaries. Foxtrot620 (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Your communication is requested.

[edit]

Welcome back to Wikipedia, 67.40.202.59. I noticed several of your edits have worked to improve Wikipedia. However, many of your edits have changed content in ways which could be considered disruptive. Can you please take a moment to explain the rationale behind some of your edits?

These include modifying sortkeys to transfer leading articles to the start of keys (see this example, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, etc). This disregards the guideline at WP:SORTKEY, which states to place the articles 'a, an, and the' to the end of keys. I also noticed you have refactored book ISBNs without hyphens (see this example), which goes against the suggestion at WP:ISBNs. You have also continued removing certain external links template such as {{Metacritic film}} or {{Rotten Tomatoes}}. Could you explain the reasoning behind that? You have also removed Commons category templates, which create boxes that direct readers to Commons when there exists freely-licensed files relating to an article's subject. You have also removed Wikquote link templates. These are considered helpful as they provide easy interwiki navigation to content that is ostensibly of interest to readers. You have also removed stub sorting templates from actual stub articles. These templates are important as they help promote which articles should be edited to higher quality (see WP:STUBSORT). And when you inexplicably remove proper spacing and alter quotation marks in violation of WP:LQ such as [1] and [2], what possible reason is behind it? Furthermore, you have made several edits restructuring existing reference/footnotes.

All these edits come with no edit summaries so we have no way of understanding your reasoning. Your edits are not blatant vandalism but they have been identified as being disruptive. Presumably you believe you are helping improve the Wikipedia project in your edits. So I would love to hear your justification of them. If any of these edits were mistakes or you believe I have misjudged your contributions, feel free to provide an explanation. Please respond to my message here on this talk page. To reply to messages, you can click the reply button. For more help, see Help:Talk pages. Other editors have already disagreed with many of your changes and it is necessary for you to either respond to these concerns or to avoid repeating similar changes. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Persistent_disruptive_edits_by_65.102.188.122
@Johnuniq: The IP sock has returned. Never once posting an edit summary nor offering a reply to the above appeal. Communication of their reasoning is evidently not of any interest to them. At the following IP socks they have been blocked a total of ten times:
After I requested their communication in accordance with your wishes they resumed their edits. They have been additionally range hopping to 172.56.169.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue this charade, including edit warring at Blade II. A sockpuppet investigation should be opened to log this block evader for posterity. These are only the few IPs I found after very little scrutiny. This person has undoubtedly utilised other undetected IPs before, during, and after the last ANI discussion. And will certainly continue to do so. Οἶδα (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is required

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing certain areas of Wikipedia for a period of three months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A person using several IP addresses (see User talk:172.56.169.44) has been making minor adjustments to articles. That is good, if the changes are desirable. However, most of the changes have been reverted because another editor believes the changes are not helpful. In a situation like that, you must respond and engage in a discussion. Ignoring other editors and continuing against objection is not a sustainable model for Wikipedia—imagine if a lot of people did that. Accordingly this IP has been blocked so that it is temporarily unable to edit articles. You can respond here or on article talk pages. Ping me (sign a new comment that includes {{ping|Johnuniq}}) if you want to attract my attention. Any other IP addresses that continue editing in this manner will also be blocked. Contributors must be willing and able to respond. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.40.202.59&oldid=1255712351"