Jump to content

User talk:51.7.23.38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hi there! Apologies, but I've had to revert your removals of the link to the main articles on the US Olympic and Track and Field Championships articles. It is common practice to link to the parent topic in the lead sentence and this helps avoid needless repetition of the subject in the first instance. Thanks! SFB 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLDAVOID. 51.7.23.38 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.
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).

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

Request reason:

I am editing in accordance with very clear guidelines. A user massively abused their rollback tool to undo a large number of my obviously beneficial edits. And now another user has blocked me, for a week, with zero warning, for editing in accordance with guidelines. That is a clear violation of the blocking policy, and this should be undone immediately. 51.7.23.38 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

Were you planning on making another 50 reverts? And how is that not massively abusing your undo tool? I will unblock if you agree not to continue reverting, and instead to discuss the changes and achieve some level of consensus first. I'd also like you to make an effort to use edit summaries to explain your edits. ST47 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly was, because MOS:BOLDAVOID is very straightforward and should be followed. The mass revert of my edits using the rollback tool was highly inappropriate and needs to be reversed. Why did you block me without warning, for following guidelines? Are you familiar with the manual of style? If not, why not?
  • You think I have an "undo tool"? WTF?
  • There is a consensus for the changes I made. It is described at MOS:BOLDAVOID.
  • The user who reverted all of my edits misused their rollback tool. "it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected... Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool". 51.7.23.38 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're obviously an LTA, so I guess I'll just reinstate the range block. ST47 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This person had been harrassing me and editor Materialscientist for months. So thanks for extending the block.BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:51.7.23.38&oldid=913162165"