Jump to content

User talk:193.172.170.26

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.172.170.26 (talk) at 10:46, 16 December 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Artwork request

I just wanted to say that Talk:Main Page is probably not the right place to make such a request. Even the article talk page is probably too limited. Looking at the Wikipedia:Community portal, you might want to try the Wikipedia:Bounty board (if you want to give a monetary prize) or the Wikipedia:Reward board. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Talk:Main Page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Main Page. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Cunard (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Please follow the instructions of Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) and discontinue posting notices that are unrelated to the main page. Also, please don't call good faith editors trolls as you did here. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming people's talk pages or you'll be blocked --Chris 09:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not spamming, just asking nicely! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're sending unsolicited messages to a large group of people, that is spam --Chris 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is for a good cause, Chris, it really is! Do you perhaps know someone artistic who could help me, or could you yourself? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to pay someone try the WP:Reward board or WP:Bounty board but if you continue spamming I will block you --Chris 09:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried both. Thanks anyway - I hope I'll get response soon! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block?

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked suddenly by someone for a month! That is very long - why not a shorter block - ask me to stop and I'll stop! This is far to heavy man! Oh, and I apologize for my repeated disruptive editing. :) 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were asked three times to stop, and have given no reason to unblock you other than by admitting that your editing has been repeatedly disruptive. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:14, 11 December 2008 (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.

It looks to me like you were asked to stop, several times, and were even warned that continued postings might lead to your being blocked. That being the case, do you have anything to add to your unblock request? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I am sorry for what I. block me from editing if you want to - I can understand it. But please make it a shorter block - one month is just to long. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that going straight from 31 hours to 1 month is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does seem like a rather long block, agreed. Tentatively favor reducing, absent some reason not to. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the random users whose talk page was assaulted, and looking at the general history (including warnings and a previous ban), the ban seems justified. They admit "repeated disruptive editing" above, after all. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the spam in question, and having noted warnings given I feel that a one month block is wholly reasonable. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The posts were wholly inappropriate, but were not rude or offensive in any way. Would support reducing the block to one week if the user promises not to engage in spamming in the future. Martin 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was already blocked once and did not change his behavior. Why do you think he would now? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:59, 11 December 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

But then why go from 31 hours to 1 month - that seems a bit harsh to me! You could at least shorten the block. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you admit to being repeatedly disruptive, even after warnings, but think that the block lengths didn't increase gradually enough? No, I don't think I'm inclined to unblock on that basis. — Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (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.

I cannot ask for unblock - I can, however, ask for someone to shorten the block. I know now I've done some bad edits, but I have never been rude and always stayed polite. You could shorten the bann - a month is very long, what about making it a week? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Polite" disruption is still disruption. You could spend the next 30 days usefully, by studying all the wikipedia policies, so that you'll be thoroughly schooled in the right and wrong ways to work here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that already. I know what to do and what not to. Just unblock me soon, let it be a week, a month really is to long. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone unblocks, please take Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi in consideration. It seems obvious from behaviour (editing pattern) that this IP is the same user. Fram (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my editing pattern similar to theirs? Oh, and I admitted that my behaviour was inappropriate at times and asked not to be unblocked - I just asked for someone to shorten the block. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let's see, editing Touch the Clouds, Shibboleth, Pier Gerlofs Donia, Talk:Main Page, creating improper redirects[1], ... All coincidences, probably...

Here is what I have to say: this IP adress is a shared one and is used on a Dutch school in Groningen. It is operated by KPN and shared with many computers. Many students aswell as teachers operate it. It is very well possible one of them is a vandal. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to keep the block length where it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. But when this IP adress is really used by disruptive vandals, then block those for a long period after this IP adress block expires - then closely monitor new editors using this IP-adress. Which users have used this IP-adress? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate some good faith, you could propose some edits here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? What edits should I propose here? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying a month is too long, so you must have some edits in mind. Present some of your ideas for edits here, so we could see if there's any justification for shortening the block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one: I plan on writing an article on Frisian writer and author J.Kalma. How's that? And I am searching for pictures of William Gentles in old archives.193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could post the article concept here. And you can search for anything you want. Blocking only stops editing, not reading. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does stop me from uploading files when I find them now does it? I guess I'd better join commons then. Oh, and a user called Fram is trying to link the IP adress to long term vandals. If one of those editors has been using this IP, then what? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KPN

{{help|This IP is operated by KPN. It is used by a school and has probably been used by several users. If wikipedia thinks banning the particular users that has caused trouble we can only agree. When wikipedia blocks this entire IP from editing however, that is something we cannot agree on. There have to be people who edit from this IP adress in good faith and blocking this IP adress would not be to their benefit nor would it be any good to wikipedia. Besides that, banning the IP adress would only mean the trolls would start editing from their home adress and thus continue vandalism. Why do you think this is a good way to solve vandalism? An eye for an eye? Let's kill the family because otherwise one of its members might do us some harm? This is not the middle ages, oh my science! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Legitimate editors should be able to create named user ID's. Then they could edit while the IP remains blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one do that? How do you mean? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot discern between good and bad editors coming from an IP that is shared. As Baseball Bugs points out, anyone willing to contribute can simply create (or request, see the message at the top of this page) an account and edit with it. This block affects only anonymous editors. Thank you for the information though, it means we can change the template above. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hereby request an account. The thing is: can I still edit with the account I will create from this blocked IP-adress? Oh, and what does a soft-block mean precisely? I mean: blocking a IP for a month after the last block has been just 31 hours is harsh and not "soft" in any way, agreed? I want to have a account called "School admin2", could you make me such an account? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:193.172.170.26&oldid=258334234"