User talk:77.99.37.105

Note[edit]

On Wikipedia, we avoid creating "Controversy sections", as per WP:CRITS and WP:UNDUE. An apology for something 9 years ago being added as a separate section is therefore not allowable. If it's actually a notable event, add it in an appropriate place elsewhere in the article, but creating a separate section to highlight it is not appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK; added back within an existing section to avoid 'undue emphasis' 77.99.37.105 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening redirect discussions[edit]

If you want to reopen the redirect discussion, please don't post on my talk page. Instead, remove the {{afc-c|d}} and {{afc-c|b}} templates from the top and bottom of the section, and create a new, bulleted comment, beginning with {{reply to|[reviewer name]}}, explaining why the redirect should be created. Thank you. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: Thank you for creating the redirect. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Lugnuts has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drill it (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (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.

@Drill it: I did, but you removed my message without replying! 77.99.37.105 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DTTR Drill it (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drill it: That's an essay not guidance. OK we willt alk about this at the admin noticeboard.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drill it (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2021 (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.

@Drill it: This looks an an abuse of a template - Which of my edits was unconstructive? 77.99.37.105 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing: Strong case of failing or refusing to get the point.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have announced to request administrative attention; the attention is here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

All my edits have been constructive - please see my edit history. When I tried to warn User:Lugnuts for edit warring on Jean Aubry (see Talk:Jean Aubry ) User:Drill it waded in and reverted my warnings. When I tried to engage with User Drill it he reverted my messages. I then indicated that I wished to take matters to the appropriate notice board then, without warning I get blocked. Blocking without warning is contrary to WP:Block. And a block for a week for a first block?? This is all appalling. If I had been an established editor, I suggest that none of this would have happened. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:43, 10 July 2021 (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.

Your persistent refusal to get the point and edit warring regarding Special:Diff/1030689645, Special:Diff/1030730092, Special:Diff/1030689645, Special:Diff/1030907413, Talk:Jean Aubry, Special:Diff/1030928393 and Special:Diff/1030930306 did not require a warning nor a short block duration. It required a technical measure to stop the disruption for a week, during which the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_22#Category:Births_in_Eure-et-Loir can reach its obvious conclusion, preventing you from pushing the point further after the block. Again: you informed others about your interest in bringing this to administrative attention, and now you're unhappy about the result of such attention. That's not how it works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will have seen that I started a dialogue at Talk:Jean Aubry but the other editor, who reverted me 3 times, came up with no policy based reason for not using the appropriate category. The fact that the cat may get deleted is not a valid reason. It hasn't been deleted yet. I also tried to dialogue with User:Drill it who simply reverted my request to engage. Throughout I am the one who has tried to dialogue. BTW have you studied my contributions? Sorry, but this is simply a bad block. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy-based reason is "WP:Consensus", which is currently forming in a central discussion that you decided (and apparently still decide) to disruptively ignore by forum shopping. If you have an argument for the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_22#Category:Births_in_Eure-et-Loir, feel free to state it here and I'll copy it there for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no position on that discussion. I tried to gain consensus about a specific edit on the relevant article talk page but the other editor simply went ahead and reverted me without contributing to consensus - he made the last revert not me. Then another, uninvolved editor reverted my edits and refused to discuss with me the reason why - he simply reverted my request for dialogue. This doesn't pass the smell test. If you want my assurance that I have moved on from this page you have it - I will not edit that page again but I have a long list of constructive edits that I want to get on with (mainly missing cats). 77.99.37.105 (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer you not to add any more categories during the week, as your unnecessarily insistent, feedback-resistant category editing is the root cause for your block. Perhaps you can convince the reviewing administrator; the two possible approaches are basically "the block was unnecessary" or "the block is not longer necessary", as described by WP:GAB. At the moment, the unblock request seems to focus on the former statement, which I believe to have disproved. The assurance is a first step into the direction of the latter statement, but not a convincing one either to me. I'll be offline for a while; all explanations I could give have been provided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have addressed your reason for the block "It required a technical measure to stop the disruption for a week, during which the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_22#Category:Births_in_Eure-et-Loir can reach its obvious conclusion, preventing you from pushing the point further after the block." by assuring you that I will not visit that page again then there is no reason for continuing the block. I would invite you, again, to examine my contributions. I would add that there has been no dispute about my other category editing. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: It seems from your responses here that maybe a partial block, applying only to the CfD and the related articles this user edited, might better serve. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD was not edited by the user, but they would have been welcome to do so, and I have offered to copy any comment there for them. The user proposes to continue adding categories to further articles – exactly the behavior that led to the block, without addressing how their approach to doing so needs to change. I could try guessing which articles they'd like to edit next, and partially block them from doing so... you see the point?

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... maybe someday we'll have the capability to block certain kinds of edits, like in this case the use of HotCat, or a user-specific edit filter that would stop them from adding cats. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.