User talk:92.11.191.227

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I did not vandalise anything. Another user did, as seen here - [1] - I merely reverted it, because the first episode hasn't even aired, and yet somehow everyone seems to think that I'M the vandal? Why? I literally just reverted vandalism, why am I being blocked and the real vandal not? 92.11.191.227 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are correct. Edit summaries are not required, but including one might have saved trouble. You were doing the correct thing, and the accusations of vandalism against you are incorrect. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The Masked Singer (Australian season 4)

Hello,

I'm sorry that I removed your edit on The Masked Singer (Australian season 4). I realized the mistake and corrected the article with an edit summary explaining the removal after others continued to re-add this material. Content removal, especially without an explanation and of that size, is best accompanied with an edit summary. Please consider how you approach other users (with aggression) and remember to assume good faith, as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and I can assure you that those who reverted you were acting in good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I was just getting upset about how I was being accused of vandalism when I was just removing it. I guess I just thought it was "obvious" that what I was reverting was vandalism (sorry also if that sounds rude, I'm not good with words). 92.11.191.227 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah I get it. You KNEW you were right, how can someone add the results of something that hasn't happened yet? It feels like absolute insanity when everybody is against you and you could not be more confident you're right. Obvious to you isn't the same as obvious to others I guess =p Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to apologize to you too, sorry. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I was about to request that your block be removed

Welcome back. And I hope you don't feel demoralized by having your changes reverted. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Magitroopa. 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. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The edits are not unconstructive at all, Magikoopa is just throwing a temper tantrum because he refused to admit that he was wrong. All I did was try to fix the tables, but he wouldn't let me do so. Then, when I tried to reach out to him peacefully, he threw another temper tantrum. He's the one accusing me of vandalising when all I was doing was correcting his incorrect information. 92.11.191.227 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:ISAWIT. Magitroopa is acting well within his bounds by reverting your edits. You're removing sourced content based on a first-hand account, which is not allowed per the guidelines of Wikipedia. Not to mention your continually restoring your comments to Magitroopa's talk page, despite that also being against this guideline. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 19:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anything. Magikoopa was also adding information based on a first-hand account, which shouldn't be allowed...and furthermore, his "first-hand" account was wrong. I don't understand what you're talking about. Why is his incorrect first-hand account information allowed, but my correct first-hand account information not? Please explain what the difference is. 92.11.191.227 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

---