User talk:24.178.29.47

April 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your edits are not helping

Stop going back to articles and unnecessary changes sentences, such as those you made to To Pimp a Butterfly, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. And stop linking common words to articles it's unnecessary, we don't linked words like "singer", "songwriter" and "recording artist" (WP:OVERLINKING). Know how to edit Wikipedia like anybody else here, keep doing the same thing after I tell you about your edits, I will reported you if continue with your unnecessary editing. Typically, when another editor reply to you on your talk page, you expected to reply to them back. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing words into numbers like you did here. Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words WP:NUMERAL, learn from your mistakes. And stop returning to articles to unnecessary changes the prose of the article, your edits add nothing constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You can continue to edit Wikipedia, but follow the guidelines like everyone else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at There's Really a Wolf. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please stop making inaccurate changes. All of the songs are new except four of them. All but means except. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ether (B.o.B album), you may be blocked from editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Woptober. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

I think you need to review the process of WP:BRD. When you change content on a page and are reverted, you don't keep changing it back. You either open a discussion on the talk page, or you leave it, otherwise you are edit warring. That's not a good place for any user, especially IP addresses, to be in. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI, regarding an issue where this IP address may be involved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Must Be Nice (G-Eazy album). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is important that you communicate either here on your talk page and/or at the aforementioned ANI case. Failure to communicate may be considered disruptive, because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and consensus-forming is important. Not acknowledging invitations to discuss may eventually result in sanctions. Thank you, — Paleo Neonate — 06:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Emotions

Stop going back to this article and restore your edits, your editing is grammatically incorrect and doesn't improve the article. You starting an edit war and you not responding to any of us is disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wins & Losses. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You just got unblocked and you still making the same disruptive edits without explaining why. If you don't response to your fellow editors next time, I will report you at WP:ANI and have you blocked again. The articles was just fine as it is, you don't need to change it, only if necessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop going to articles to change things out of personal preference, these articles was just fine how they are, changing Wikipedia pages solely to suit your personal preference is disruptive and you not responding is making things worse, if you continue to doing these unnecessary edits without explaining why, you be blocked from Wikipedia. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI, regarding an issue where this IP address may be involved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is important that you communicate either here on your talk page and/or at the aforementioned ANI case. Failure to communicate may be considered disruptive, because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and consensus-forming is important. Not acknowledging invitations to discuss may eventually result in sanctions. Please response, stop ignoring these messages and explain your edits. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Regardless of my opinion on this block, can you please explain why you originally blocked this ip user for 3 months. That seems rather excessive. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read this thread to see my rationale, "I actually think this is someone that has been blocked for disruptive editing before as an IP and evading but if they finally decide to communicate then I'm willing to be patient. If not, I'll block them for failing to engage and disruptive editing."

While their IP may change, their previous history does not. They began editing as an IP here on March 30 which was in violation of their one month block they received here. Block evasion also applies so going to three months was spot on.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: The editor also have use other IPs too, here's the IPs that this editor might have used in the past [1] [2] [3]. This editor have a history of using multiple accounts, this block is completely justified. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Thanks for that explanation. That cleared up a few things. I still disagree with this latest block, however, because there was no evidence of edit warring, or any blockable behavior, unless I'm missing another evasion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of extreme case one shouldn't have to explain an edit that was subsequently reverted unless they attempt to restore that edit. It's Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Explain-why-you-were-bold-in-the-first-place-Discuss. Was there something else?

Also what doesn't make sense is why the first ip, 24.178.2.82 received as its first block a 7 days. Yes, I know that wasn't you, but perhaps you might speculate as that admin @Laser brain: hasn't edited since April and I don't expect a reply anytime soon. I suppose a week isn't that much more than 31 hours, so perhaps it's a distinction without a difference. But what is more troubling than the length is why the ip received a block at all without receiving an appropriate warning. No, I don't consider a couple of MOS templates to be warnings, much less adequate warnings. Veering off (or even ignoring) the MOS on a specfic article isn't and should never be a blockable offense unless a consensus has formed for that article and the editor damned well knows this. However, to be blocked for disruption -- how Laser Brain described this block, without receiving something more specfic is a somewhat cavalier use of ye olde blocking finger. Accordingly, the second block (and the length) isn't a surprise. Their next was a 1 month block, and fortunately the blocking admin @Materialscientist: is not on hiatus and perhaps he can answer why he blocked this ip. Not the length, which makes sense due to the length of the previous blocks, but why was this ip blocked at all? The rationale was "Persistent addition of unsourced content" which is of course a big no-no. Not only did the ip not receive a warning of any kind about unsourced content, they didn't even receive an explanation of the block after the fact on their talk page. Are there other ip users involved? Registered users? Revdels? I've got to be missing something here. Thanks for your time. That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are required to engage others and although that is an essay, the rationale behind it may be found at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, points #4 and #5 which is why the editor was blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing. Laser brain began the block cycle here and his response may be seen here.

Once an IP or sock account is understood to be linked to previous IPs or sock accounts, there will be no new warnings required as they will have been considered to have already been warned. We don't start the cycle of warnings over so they may be blocked without warning.

Materialscientist has pings turned off so if you still want him to reply then you will need to leave a message on his talk page.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that essay kind of makes my point; the ip was not violating the BRD cycle. Where has it ever been the case that an editor needs to defend their content post-hoc removal? That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus Kryik: if you are interested, this is the place. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2017 (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.