User talk:Renamed user 678947867

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Renamed user 678947867 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is working fine on Dutch Wikipedia, but on the English Wikipedia it says: "Editing from 188.206.0.0/17 has been blocked (disabled)" Bijdenhandje (talk)

Accept reason:

I've granted you IP block exemption for a brief period of time. It will allow you to edit despite the block on your IP address. There is a lot of vandalism on this IP range, so it could get blocked again despite the collateral damage. This should at least give you a chance to show us that you're a serious contributor and not another vandal. After that, I'd feel more comfortable granting you IPBE longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2020 (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).

Renamed user 678947867 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My phones IP adress seems to be blocked. Why is my account blocked as well? This makes no sense.Bijdenhandje (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your account is not blocked directly, just your underlying IP address. In order to help you further, you will need to tell what your IP address is so it can be looked into. If you do not wish to do this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to give it privately. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2020 (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.

That IP range is under a CheckUser block, meaning there is technical evidence of some sort of inappropriate activity(not necessarily by you) from this IP range. I will leave this open for a checkuser to eventually see and look into. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also recommended[edit]

You may also want to read up on WP:POINT. Kleuske (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your point is. Perhaps you can explain wich one of my article edits was not meant to be an improvement. Why are you watching all my edits? Bijdenhandje (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example.[1] You need to stop reverting everything on sight and start considering the effect of your edits. Have a closer look at page histories. Maybe use the occasional edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the version where a vandal changed the word actor to joker. Kleuske reverted that revert. Not sure why you are stalking all my edits. Your time would be better spend on reading Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Bijdenhandje (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your two edits reverted to the same version as Kleuske, who had reverted to your version.[2] neither of your edits were necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the reverts of Kleuske were necessary or what the point is that you are trying to make. Does this have anything to do with the fake vandalism warnings? I don't like being harrassed, if that's what this is then please stop it. Bijdenhandje (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now who should be reading WP:AGF? Kleuske made a revert and then reverted to your version. It doesn't matter why he did that, it fixed any problems and your subsequent edits were completely unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like ~~his~~ her reverts where necessary. There was nothing wrong with my version, there where no problems to be fixed. The current version is just fine. Either get to the point or stop wasting our time. What are you accusing me of this time? Bijdenhandje (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it doesn't matter why he made the edits that he did. Maybe he made a revert, realised his mistake and then reverted back to your version? The point is, neither of your edits were necessary. You need to own your mistakes and stop attacking others when they point them out. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girls, girls... I accidentally hit the revert button and reverted myself within a minute. Errare humanum est and all that. But I’m so glad the two of you are talking. Kind regards, Mrs. Kleuske (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are accusing me of making mistakes and because I make mistakes your behaviour on Young Sheldon and putting vandalism tags on my talkpage is acceptable? Just remove me from your watchlist and find someone else to argue with. I have better things to do. Thanks Bijdenhandje (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Everybody makes mistakes and I merely explained my own. Also, I did not put any vandalism tags on your page, I only pointed out some policy for your benefit. Kleuske (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske, only my first comment was directed at you. My last comment was a rhetorical question, also not directed at you. I still don't understand what me by mistake reverting your mistake and then reverting my own mistake has to do with WP:POINT. None of what happend was kliederen. Bijdenhandje (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord[edit]

As you participated, you might want to know Raegan Revord of Young Sheldon's article is currently at User:Alden_Loveshade/Raegan_Revord. I hope to see it return to main space. Responsible edits are welcomed there. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sheldon[edit]

Please see MOS:ENTO. For a range such as 18 to 21 minutes, Wikipedia style is to use the en dash (18–21). Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the user who was editwarring did not inform the other users about this. Bijdenhandje (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]