User talk:94.119.32.7

Welcome![edit]

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! Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of mountain peaks by prominence without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2024 (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.

Ridiculous[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Editing without an account inevitably triggers aggressive responses from people with accounts. But never before have I found that I was blocked from editing the talk page of an article. It is ridiculous enough that an administrator acted on a bad-faith request for protection, made by an editor who was reverting my edits for absolutely no reason. It is outrageous that the administrator then deleted my talk page post and blocked me from editing the talk page. There is absolutely no justification for this in any policy or guideline. 94.119.32.7 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There might have been a way to edit productively. It would start with not repeatedly using the phrase "bot-added shit" in your editing, for one thing, demonstrating an understanding of basic civility. But I find further justification for this partial block in your clear battleground mentality. You should be grateful to the other editors on the range, because that would otherwise support a sitewide block. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2024 (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.

94.119.32.7 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

So you think a bot took offence at their edit of two decades ago being called shit. That is special. And "battleground mentality"? That is special too. Reverting my edits without explanation, removing my talk page posts and blocking me is the action of people seeking a battle. There is absolutely no justification for blocking me from editing the talk page, nor removing what I posted there, nor reverting any of the edits I made to the page. 94.119.32.4 (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is clearly necessary to prevent the disruption caused by your incivility and battleground attitude. It's also obvious this isn't your first go at this. "Editing without an account inevitably triggers aggressive responses from people with accounts", I don't think that's entirely true, not in my eyes. I have no issue with IP users who edit civilly, constructively, and with a collaborative attitude- qualities which you haven't demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (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.

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.