User talk:112.199.181.130

April 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher Layne. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Capewearer (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2020 (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 refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Capewearer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Capewearer (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2020 (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.

I am restoring the bilblio, you are raping the page for no reason, why am I a vandal? Stop your poppycock.112.199.181.130 (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:28, 6 April 2020 (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.

But the user Capewearer vandalised the Christopher Layne page with no real or proper reason and smeared my name saying that I am vandal when I restored the page. You don't even know the details of what happened. Contact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47, he can vouch for the truth of my statements.112.199.181.130 (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Capewearer didn't 'vandalise' the page. The number of links on there was not appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. The page was protected to prevent you from continuing to revert Capewearer's actions. It's time to move on while ensuring that you remain [{WP:CIVIL|civil]]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a lot of the external links already. After I removed the links, I asked Capewearer whether it was enough or not. It was a legit question. He did not answer me and just deleted everything. This shows that he just wanted to vandalise the entire page for no good reason. User ST47 put a lock on the page to prevent Capewearer's vandalism but he still managed to vandalise the entire page.112.199.181.130 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it showed that the page needed to be improved further and perhaps (I don't know I'm not them) didn't believe that the incivil way that you approached them (such as accusing them of vandalism) was not worth responding to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I politely asked Capewearer whether the page was okay or not after I removed the links. He did not reply and just deleted everything. He said that there were too many external links, it was a "linkfarm" etc. I made a ton of edits removing a lot of the external links. I was wondering it was enough. But capewearer never replied. He is abusing his position. 112.199.181.130 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors, including Capewerer, replied to you at Talk:Christopher Layne and explained why the links weren't appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They said that it was a "linkfarm". I replied that it was a proper and well sourced and well referenced bibliography with links to outside sources. They said "no". So I conceded and made edits removing a ton of external links from the page. I ask capewearer whether it was enough or not. He never gave me any sort of reply and deleted everything. Look, I already made concessions. But capewearer didn't even bother to reply to me.112.199.181.130 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they explained their reasoning in their edit summaries and on the talk page. Anyway, this conversation has gone around in circles enough. Time to move on to something else. As I mentioned above leave Capewearer alone and find another article to work on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.