User talk:Inateadaze

After getting pestered and insulted for fixing vandalism, by a user who had themselves undone some of the vandal's other edits, I think I'll not bother trying to build a high quality encyclopaedia any more. Inateadaze (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I please express my embarrassment at your recent experiences at Falkland Islands. I have stated in mild form my objections as to how you were treated, Wow,_whoa....

All I can think is that, as happens here at Wikipedia, some articles are long-term battlegrounds, and civilian status is not respected. Rather, everybody editing there is targeted with the greatest suspicion and the least kindness. As you might imagine the article Falkland Islands has been subject to years of misuse and abuse. The grim situation seems to make long-time editors there grim also. It is not defensible, even if understandable. It makes me sad. Shenme (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note and what you said on the article talk page. I still cannot comprehend why my fixing of obviously disruptive edits by an obviously disruptive editor caused any issue. I get the impression that those concerned would object to any change by anyone outside their clique, even to the extent of restoring vandalism once they had, by overlooking it, perceived it as "theirs". Inateadaze (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see they keep on putting back the scare quotes around "Falklands". It's completely bizarre. Well I may check in one more time in a few days to see what has transpired but otherwise, my contributions are at an end. Inateadaze (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Isles

You seem to be taking edits over there very personally. I'd advise you take a step back and calm down somewhat - edit summaries such as this one here fall short of assuming good faith and cast you in a poor light rather than your intended target. If you believe an editor to be COI or is failing to adhere to NPOV, take it to the relevant forum, instead of casting accusations via edit summary. Your constant changes also fall into the category of edit warring, which is also frowned upon. I know the obvious answer is "But they're also edit warring!" - however multiple editors have reverted you, not a single editor - which should suggest to you that you need to discuss rather than try to force you opinion across.

For what it's worth - I disagree with your single/plural changes, but agree with the removal of 'quotes' around the Falkland term itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]