User talk:2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6

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

Welcome![edit]

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:

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

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6) 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! -BigDwiki talk 01:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — YoungForever(talk) 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Bob's Burgers (season 10)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as done at User talk:YoungForever.
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 ~~~~}}.  v/r - TP 01:21, 20 April 2020 (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.
He's your typical Wikipedia dick. Talks a lot, does naff all for content improvement and has thin skin. Just avoid him. CassiantoTalk 09:03, 29 April 2020 (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).

2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was only responding to the constant responses the user was giving on their history because they didn't leave them in the normal way. Are users not allowed to respond on a talk page? If you look at my talk history you will see the user has consistently harassed me about my edits. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are asked to stay of someone's talk page, you stay off someone's talk page; that's how it works here. And you certainly don't edit war on someone else's talk page. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:39, 20 April 2020 (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).

2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

When is responding to the users consistent replies edit waring??? What about the user's consistent harassment on my talk page since the beginning of the year???? 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I was tempted to extend your block as you are clearly deliberately wasting our time here. However, I decided against it as you are currently blocked for a week. Note any further pointless unblock requests will likely result in your block being substantially extended. WP:GAB helps explain how to stop wasting our time. Yamla (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2020 (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.

Suggestions[edit]

If you have disputes over the content of some article, you should try starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page. I note Talk:Duncanville (TV series) hasn't been edited in nearly 1 month. In addition, if someone posts on your talk page, feel free to respond on your talk page. Most editors prefer discussions stay in the same thread anyway, unless they need to be moved to somewhere else, like the article talk page. Moving a discussion from your talk page to some other editor's talk page is often unnecessary and can make it more confusing to follow. Feel free to ping relevant editors to the discussion if you think they may not come across it by themselves, unless you've been asked not to. If your IP is highly dynamic, it can sometimes be difficult to hold discussions on your talk page since it's continually changing, that's one advantage of registering but it seems like this isn't a problem for you anyway.

Also, even if someone doesn't ask you to stay away from their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:UOWN you should not generally revert someone's removal of a discussion from their own talk page. If you absolutely must respond to something they said and they didn't ask you to stay away, then it may be acceptable to open a new discussion without reverting. (This means the discussion is confusing, but if it's a choice between that and violating owntalk, it's probably better not to violate owntalk.) But frankly 99.9% of the time, if someone removes some discussion from their talk page, it's probably better to either drop it, or bring it somewhere more appropriate like an article talk page. Use common sense for exceptions. (E.g. if someone removes a discussion saying 'No response, I think this is resolved' it's probably acceptable to revert if you do have a response, explaining why you did so and why it took a while to respond.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne:That's fine, but when a user reverts the discussion but adds a reply to the edit summary, that leads a user to think a reply is appropriate. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]