User talk:155.4.221.27

June 2022

Hello, I'm Senator2029. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, XnView, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Senator2029 【talk】 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Jörmungandr. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a comment. It was notable and relevant information. Pretty much all figures in Norse mythology have names. Jörmundganr, however, isn't given one. That is a significant fact. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2023 (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.

May 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Death of Mahsa Amini—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Materialscientist. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Grachester (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already effectively blocked, in practice, so that's hardly a threat. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Auto-antonym, 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. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2023 (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.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Auto-antonym, you may be blocked from editing. Leave it alone. "Cleave" is a perfect example of an autoantonym. If you don't understand, then take this to the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Meters (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2023 (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.

Your recent editing history at Auto-antonym shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Belbury (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Auto-antonym. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Really? "Slanderous lies"? Not the first time this IP has been warned for personal attacks. Meters (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:FAITH: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary 155.4.221.27 (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2023 (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.

July 2023

Hello, I'm Asthmastronaut. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ironic (song) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Asthmastronaut (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Religion in Sweden. Kleuske (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske:"You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Religion in Sweden."? I DID YOU LIAR! 155.4.221.27 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reasons claimed for why I am blocked, are what applies to the OTHER editors involved. Not me. They disrupted with wiki vandalism and violations of WP:FAITH, which I reverted. There is no policy against reverting vandalism. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edits that you disagree with are not vandalism. You do not address your personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2023 (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.

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.

Interesting new block appeal process... So now people don't have to beg the admin who blocked you, for the permission, to appeal the block, which the admin could just refuse, with impunity?

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).

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

Request reason:

How are they not vandalism? How are they not utterly invalid? ...and nowhere in the stated block reason, was there any mention of personal attacks, nor hav e I made any. To cite WP:Faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." 155.4.221.27 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Content disagreements are not WP:VANDALISM. The reason for your block is given as "Disruptive editing - edit warring, personal attacks." If you don't think calling someone "YOU FILTHY LIAR!!" is a personal attack, then you have some competence issues. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:21, 10 July 2023 (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.

If you don't think that screaming in all caps that someone is a "filthy liar" is not a personal attack, that does not bode well for your editing future. Again, that you disagree with an edit does not make it "vandalism". The word vandalism has a specific meaning, an attempt to deface an article. Making an edit that you disagree with is not defacement. There are proper channels to address an edit that you feel is in error. Terming it vandalism is not one. Someone will review your request. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

You did not address how any of my edits were disruptive, nor how/why the completely unjustified and unexplained reverts, where in any way valid ...and calling someone a filthy liar, when they are obviously a liar, isn't an ad hominem. It's a fact. It is no more a personal attack, then the accusations I responded to, yet that editor is completely unpunished ...and saying that my claims of vandalism, are purely due to my disagreeing with the edits, rather than the reasons I clearly stated, is a personal attack, slander, and a flagrant violation of WP:FAITH ...and there is no validity to talk of "use the proper channels", when it is obvious you refuse to allow anyone to use the proper channels. Discussion isn't allowed.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." None of the other editors respect the rules, so why should I? That only means that I get completely silenced. (which is no different to getting banned, so a ban is not any kind of threat, whatsoever) ...and it's not like Wikipedia admins give follow the rules either.
Even if you make edits, that are 100% in line with all the policies, rules, and guidelines, you can get an admin treat it as rule-breaking. And when you protest, fully in appliance with the rules, you get blocked ...and then, when you try to appeal the block, you learn that you first have to ask the admin for their reason for banning you (this appears to have changed?), so you do that ...to which their response is to ban you from editing your talk page... Then, when you try to appeal to the only option left, The Arbitration Committee ...who completely ignore you, and let the admin go unpunished...
I know this, from experience.
The rules of Wikipedia are fine ...but as no one follows them, least of all the admins, I don't give a shit about following them, either. Any rule-breaking I do, is because of you lot. If the rules were reasonable (which they are), followed, upheld, and applied, then I'd follow them, and go through the proper channels. As it is, they are not, no one allows for using the proper channels, and the admins punish one side for any rule breaking, real or invented, but let the other side break whatever rules they want, completely on a whim, and without any explanation or justification.
Note that I don't expect, nor have I at any point in this process expected, a good response ...as that would require that the other party is honest and reasonable, and I have yet to encounter anyone here, who is either. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were obviously engaging in personal attacks, and you admit yourself that you broke the rules. "They did it too" is irrelevant as an argument. I think we're done here: revoking talk page access. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2023 (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.

"I robbed the bank, but the bank made me do it!" is a poor argument in the extreme. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic

This is Wikipedia, not your personal blog. Please, do not test the limits of our patience and abide to our policies and guidelines, like WP:No original research, or harsher sanctions will be requiered. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:50, 10 July 2023 (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.