User talk:174.70.32.232

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).

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

Request reason:

Editor blocked for characterizing the subject as a "pornographic actress" along with other forms of work. The subject is indeed engaged in this profession as evidenced by her recent contract work with jerkmate.com. No other edits were made. I responded to the editors comment regarding removal and made this known. Such a profession is merely fact and should not be treated shamefully. While I understand there is likely vandalism of this page given the subject, accusations of vandalism and reversing the edit are not warranted. Nor is removal of known fact from Wikipedia for unknown and unexplained reasons. If possible, I would like a real justification from the editor as to his/her reason for removal of my edit repeatedly with little to no discussion.

Decline reason:

As far as I can tell, you never added a source to back up what can be a very contentious allegation. If it's as factual and well-known as you seem to be claiming, you should easily be able to find a reliable source. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 16 November 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.

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Amouranth—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) 04:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is an actress who has begun creating pornographic content under contract with jerkmate.com. A quick Google search will reveal this. Characterization as a pornographic actress is neither inappropriate nor shameful. It is simply a fact. Hiding facts is not the purpose of Wikipedia. As someone who has contributed to providing excellent fact based science content, I fail to understand your objection to this. I also fail to see how it is unconstructive to characterize her work appropriately and similar to other celebrities in a similar career.

An edit war is pointless. If you feel writing an entire section on her work for such sites would justify this edit, it can be done. However, I feel that would be unconstructive as would footnoting and potentially driving traffic to such sites. What purpose is there in removing this factual information from Wikipedia?

This edit is absolutely not vandalism. I would like an explanation as to how you arrive at such a conclusion. 174.70.32.232 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 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 do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Amouranth. Thank you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:46, 15 November 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 your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Amouranth, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Amouranth. Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see comments previously noted and end your accusations of vandalism. You are removing factual information from Wikipedia with no discussion or commentary for unspecified reasons. 174.70.32.232 (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 16 November 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.