User talk:77.99.37.105

Note

On Wikipedia, we avoid creating "Controversy sections", as per WP:CRITS and WP:UNDUE. An apology for something 9 years ago being added as a separate section is therefore not allowable. If it's actually a notable event, add it in an appropriate place elsewhere in the article, but creating a separate section to highlight it is not appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

OK; added back within an existing section to avoid 'undue emphasis' 77.99.37.105 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reopening redirect discussions

If you want to reopen the redirect discussion, please don't post on my talk page. Instead, remove the {{afc-c|d}} and {{afc-c|b}} templates from the top and bottom of the section, and create a new, bulleted comment, beginning with {{reply to|[reviewer name]}}, explaining why the redirect should be created. Thank you. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Thank you for creating the redirect. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Lugnuts has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drill it (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

@Drill it: I did, but you removed my message without replying! 77.99.37.105 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:DTTRDrill it (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drill it: That's an essay not guidance. OK we willt alk about this at the admin noticeboard.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drill it (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

@Drill it: This looks an an abuse of a template - Which of my edits was unconstructive? 77.99.37.105 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing: Strong case of failing or refusing to get the point.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You have announced to request administrative attention; the attention is here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

All my edits have been constructive - please see my edit history. When I tried to warn User:Lugnuts for edit warring on Jean Aubry (see Talk:Jean Aubry ) User:Drill it waded in and reverted my warnings. When I tried to engage with User Drill it he reverted my messages. I then indicated that I wished to take matters to the appropriate notice board then, without warning I get blocked. Blocking without warning is contrary to WP:Block. And a block for a week for a first block?? This is all appalling. If I had been an established editor, I suggest that none of this would have happened. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=All my edits have been constructive - please see my edit history. When I tried to warn [[User:Lugnuts]] for edit warring on [[Jean Aubry]] (see [[Talk:Jean Aubry]] ) [[User:Drill it]] waded in and reverted my warnings. When I tried to engage with [[User Drill it]] he reverted my messages. I then indicated that I wished to take matters to the appropriate notice board then, without warning I get blocked. Blocking without warning is contrary to [[WP:Block]]. And a block for a week for a first block?? This is all appalling. If I had been an established editor, I suggest that none of this would have happened. [[Special:Contributions/77.99.37.105|77.99.37.105]] ([[User talk:77.99.37.105#top|talk]]) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=All my edits have been constructive - please see my edit history. When I tried to warn [[User:Lugnuts]] for edit warring on [[Jean Aubry]] (see [[Talk:Jean Aubry]] ) [[User:Drill it]] waded in and reverted my warnings. When I tried to engage with [[User Drill it]] he reverted my messages. I then indicated that I wished to take matters to the appropriate notice board then, without warning I get blocked. Blocking without warning is contrary to [[WP:Block]]. And a block for a week for a first block?? This is all appalling. If I had been an established editor, I suggest that none of this would have happened. [[Special:Contributions/77.99.37.105|77.99.37.105]] ([[User talk:77.99.37.105#top|talk]]) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=All my edits have been constructive - please see my edit history. When I tried to warn [[User:Lugnuts]] for edit warring on [[Jean Aubry]] (see [[Talk:Jean Aubry]] ) [[User:Drill it]] waded in and reverted my warnings. When I tried to engage with [[User Drill it]] he reverted my messages. I then indicated that I wished to take matters to the appropriate notice board then, without warning I get blocked. Blocking without warning is contrary to [[WP:Block]]. And a block for a week for a first block?? This is all appalling. If I had been an established editor, I suggest that none of this would have happened. [[Special:Contributions/77.99.37.105|77.99.37.105]] ([[User talk:77.99.37.105#top|talk]]) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Your persistent refusal to get the point and edit warring regarding Special:Diff/1030689645, Special:Diff/1030730092, Special:Diff/1030689645, Special:Diff/1030907413, Talk:Jean Aubry, Special:Diff/1030928393 and Special:Diff/1030930306 did not require a warning nor a short block duration. It required a technical measure to stop the disruption for a week, during which the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_22#Category:Births_in_Eure-et-Loir can reach its obvious conclusion, preventing you from pushing the point further after the block. Again: you informed others about your interest in bringing this to administrative attention, and now you're unhappy about the result of such attention. That's not how it works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You will have seen that I started a dialogue at Talk:Jean Aubry but the other editor, who reverted me 3 times, came up with no policy based reason for not using the appropriate category. The fact that the cat may get deleted is not a valid reason. It hasn't been deleted yet. I also tried to dialogue with User:Drill it who simply reverted my request to engage. Throughout I am the one who has tried to dialogue. BTW have you studied my contributions? Sorry, but this is simply a bad block. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)