User talk:79.223.4.134

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (79.223.4.134) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Bob talk 19:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not going to get involved in whatever the argument is about on Reach for the Sky (something about a spacer?), but I would advise against accusing fairly long-standing editors of "vandalism", which usually refers to people writing obscenities or nonsense or blanking a page, which this clearly isn't. Obviously, what I do recommend is for whatever the issue is to be discussed on the talk page in a way that explains what the problem is so that another third party can intervene. Also, these sort of things usually carry more weight when you have an account, rather than an anonymous IP address. Thanks. Bob talk 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I was accused of vandalism for a lot less, and this guy is not only making an obvious mistake (as I pointed out), he is actively preventing a discussion about it. If that's not vandalism, what is?

I agree, I would love to discuss this, and in fact started a discussion. Tell him to join in instead of deleting the section. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't force anyone to discuss something. I truly don't see that the issue is worthy of a dispute. Are you sure it isn't better to let the article go, as it is (regardless of whether it is with or without the comment and/or spacer - sorry if I'm confused)?

Additionally, you should consider addressing the concerns about WP:SOCKing raised at WP:ANI - calmly & rationally. If you are not (and, WP:AGF, you're not), great! Address the concerns and move on. WP:SOCKing is so common that false accusations happen (sorry if that's the case). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I don't want to force him, I just think he should either be ready to discuss or keep out altogether. If there is any other way to run Wikipedia, I'm not aware of it.

I can't prove a negative, so I really have now idea what would be the best way to address this. I hope a simple claim with no evidence is just dismissed by others. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Bogus block. I'm harassed by at least one named user, and of course the IP is alwyays wrong.

Decline reason:

No reason to unblock: See WP:NOTTHEM. Based on your continued aggressive behavior, I'm inclined to extend the block. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Of course you do, because IPs will always be mistreated. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Block

Edit warring over trivial visual issues, even when possibly/probably supported by the MOS is frowned on here. It's the height of lame, and there are significantly more constructive things you could be doing here than causing drama. I've blocked you for 24hrs to try and instill that sentiment and end the disruption for now. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you blocked Beyond, too, because he clearly was just as edit-warring as I was! --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)