User talk:Hello71/Archive 2016

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hello71. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Oops sorry from Klikmon

I meant no harm to come from my 'blurb' re...creation vs. evolution controversy. My real and only excuse is that I'm well meaning but a stumbling 'neophte' on WIKI... Not very likely at-all to happen again. -- That truly was my very first attempt to contribute to any-thing. The "BOT" intervined with some help to teach me. I Love Truth/Knowledge and would never consider denegrating/vandalyzing the ilk of such. RESPECTS - Klikmon {a Noob}Klikmon (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

wasnt a mistake

wasnt a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntsmoker53 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

English Water Spaniel

The wikipedia article on the English Water Spaniel is extinct. This is wrong since I know for a fact there is one left. I edited the article to include "thought to be extinct". Since I own the last surviving breed I also started a facebook page for him here https://www.facebook.com/English-Water-Spaniel-1120783834608201/ Then I got a message saying my edits didn't contribute anything? Is that a joke? Proof of what was thought to be an extinct breed of dog still alive and breathing isn't worth putting on the wikipedia page that says that he is extinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.224.24 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My brother got on my computer messed up my research. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugman11 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to editing this and the page under my name has a lot of old information and some. The edits I made are all accurate and truthful. How can I make them permanent? Thank you for your help. John\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjeromeoconnor (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I understand defamatory remarks but what about if these remarks are true and garnered from empirical knowledge, for example I actually work for the company I was talking about. I feel it's fair to add something accurate to the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.104.5.232 (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

UAA Talk

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Removal_of_pending_report_and_re-reporting_of_redundant_reports.3F regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Horseless Headman (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

You removed my edit saying I was vandalizing But I was not vandalizing as I was presenting facts that happened therefore helping to increase peoples knowledge of what happened. If you have a logical argument please present it 2:16 p.m. 2/16/2016 -wolf1121 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf1121 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

LL Cool J

<3 cool J

It was constructive.

I'm sorry I changed his page. I was mad because he messed up the car battery page and there is no talk page for that to even comment on it. Thanks for fixing my mistake. JustCopewithit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing

When I edited the pages it wasn't vandalism it was only adding content or fixing typos. Please dont not refrain me from editing and why aren't my edits being saved. Taiyubh21 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Subject/headline

This is 163.150.50.12. I do not know who exactly edited the page, nor have I ever visited the page (except to find out whom Aung San Suu Kyi is). I have created an account.

P.S. See Triple-alpha process to see what my username means.

Why did you revert "died by" back to "committed"?

Hi,

I recently changed "committed suicide" to "died by suicide" in the article for rose west. This new phrasing is clearer, easier to understand, and uses modern language that reduces the stigma of suicide. You described it as a good faith edit. Why did you revert it? Is there any particular reason you want to keep the "committed suicide" wording? --DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

English Water Spaniel is not extinct. Here are some links to some pictures

https://www.facebook.com/English-Water-Spaniel-1120783834608201/?fref=ts is where "Jack the English Water Spaniel" has a facebook page. You can see many pictures of him. There are still a few English Water Spaniels left. When I went to correct it, you undid my post claiming it wasn't constructive or whatever. Is it more constructive to write lies about a dog that still lives? Maybe you could revise the Wikipedia article yourself after doing research with the link provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.224.24 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

English Water Spaniel is not extinct. Another link to pictures.

http://www.englishwaterspaniel.bunnga.com/ Maybe you could change "Jack's" status from "extinct" to "alive" for a little while. At least until he dies and then have the decency to include him in the Wikipedia article. I think even though he is a dog, he at least has the right to be acknowledged as being alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.224.24 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WHY

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU UNDID EDIT TO CRICKET MATCHES TO 1725. THE GUY IS WRONG AND GETS TOUCHY IF HIS WORK IS TOUCHED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.168.29 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

About the reverse edit on RDR season 8

Hi! You removed my addition about Naysha Lopez' farewell message because no source was added. The message was transcribed by myself, like it's been done by other individuals on previous seasons, e.g. Season 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race_(season_6)#Kelly_Mantle.27s_farewell_message, thus no source has been added to earlier season's farewell messages. Should they also be removed if this is the case? Squidoh (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your request

It's done, but there are technical issues I have to ponder, so there may be no further action soon (or ever) other than my protection of the article. Thanks for the heads up, though. Feel free to ping me or e-mail me if there's something further. As a rule, though, I don't usually reply to e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to see if they were blatant socks. If not, then we'll just have to watch the page. ⁓ Hello 71 18:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Trudeau

No vandalism, which you accused me of -- I copied a quote from an article that the sentence was citing -- check for yourself. ^[1]

Vandalism

Please explain how my edit is vandalism. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not post specious vandalism warnings or your behaviour will be brought up at ANI. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

could you explain why you undid GECB?

there was no promotion of any sort, this was an explanation of methodology, dispersed freely! do you undo Buddhism, Islam or any other religion or philosophy as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.215.1 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Warn users

Hi there,

Can you tell me about how I can warn someone on his talk page please?, in the Dutch edition works which include different.

Regards, BerendWorst (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation,hope it will succeed, regards BerendWorst (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we talk about Huggle?

I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a highly active Huggle user (top 20, actually). The Wikimedia Collaboration Team is researching a project that we hope will be useful to people who use Huggle and others engaged in edit-review and anti-vandalism. Using artificial intelligence programming (in ORES) and other means, we believe we can create feeds of Recent Changes that are better tailored to the type of work you do, helping you to be more effective and efficient. (The technology will have other benefits as well, which we can talk about.)

We're in the early stages of planning this and want to speak with people like yourself to better understand your work, goals and issues. If you’re interested in helping, I’d like to set up a time to meet by video conference, so that you can explain and demonstrate (via screensharing) some of your workflows, and we can ask and answer any questions.

To participate, please email the following information to me, jmatazzoniwikimedia.org, or send it to designresearchwikimedia.org:

Username
city/time zone
Best time to talk to you?
Email where we can reach you
Please use the subject line: Huggle User Conversations

Thanks! JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied via e-mail to jmatazzoni

wikimedia.org. ⁓ Hello 71 21:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hello71. Thanks for adding a note to my user page—and for offering to help. Your email got caught in my spam filter, but I have it now. I've forwarded your info to someone who will reach out to you. Talk to you soon! JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm Hello71. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Mount Juliet High School— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ⁓ Hello 71 16:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Gary Webb Page

That guy is back at it on the Gary Webb page. We could use your input.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:42, 12 October 2016

Hello Hello71, concerning the revision I performed previously, it is my humble opinion that you did a mistake by reverting my revision. The All-on-4 concept was created more than 20 years ago by Professor Paulo Maló and his team (please see the infographic in this link from the Foundation for Oral Rehabilitation. So, it is impossible for Dr. Alex Fibishenko to have pioneered the concept in Australia. Please check in this link from Pubmed and also this link from Pubmed that there isn't a single scientific study from Dr. Alex Fibishenko published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal regarding the All-on-4 concept. The contribution of Dr. Alex Fibishenko on the All-on-4 topic in Wikipedia seeks only free publicity for his clinics in Australia, using the Wikipedia as a tool for his marketing campaign.

The All-on-4 is a serious rehabilitation concept that is used by hundreds or thousands of dental surgeons, many published scientific studies (please see this link from Pubmed, it changed the lives of thousands of patients and does not deserve to be treated as a marketing tool.

Therefore I ask you not to revert my revision. Best regards, informed_clinician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed clinician (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Look harder. ⁓ Hello 71 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Dynamic a-list

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Dynamic a-list. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up (2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F)

You may want to see this, which was the IP that you were blocked over edit warring with. I guess Ponyo found technical evidence that this was someone's IP sock... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be User:Atomic Meltdown, as this user was blocked as Atomic Meltdown making similar edits that the IP had done. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Template:Steven Spielberg. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The edits you were reverting do not, in my view, fall under WP:3RRNO criteria 4 : "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." and also says "When in doubt, do not revert." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:21, 28 October 2016 (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).

Hello71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

~~Do you even read contributions, history, or actually even policy?~~ (edit: this was unnecessarily provocative)

1. 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reverted edits on 85th Academy Awards four times, and this is even excluding obvious IP hopping (visible using contribrange gadget).

2. The edit summaries used by 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F clearly imply (although do not in and of themselves show) a disruptive motive, rather than a contributory one.

3. WP:3RR says that reverting may lead to a block. Furthermore, WP:WL is not productive in this case (or at all); WP:IAR and look at previous contributions, as pointed out in my points 1 and 4.

4. I have been editing Wikipedia for over nine years, whereas 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F has edited for about nine hours. WP:AGF, and a talk page warning would have been appropriate instead of jumping to the block button. Just because you have a tool doesn't mean it's the right thing to use.

Decline reason:

This block will run out in a few hours anyway, but I'm going to decline this unblock request for a couple of reasons. Firstly, much of this is a WP:NOTTHEM type of argument that isn't about your own conduct. You also highlight the fact that you were not warned. Yet you warned your opponent that being engaged in an edit war might see them blocked - so unless you didn't read the warnings you handed out you should have been well aware of what edit warring may lead to. You can hardly claim ignorance. Finally, regarding your much greater experience (which is rather hard to judge for IP editors whose IP may not be static), in those nine years you should have learned how not to edit war. Yet you still seem to be convinced that reverting over and over again was the right course of action. It wasn't. As an aside, I'm somewhat concerned that you're linking to WP:Rollback and quoting half a sentence without noticing that the sentence comes with caveats you did not respect - or can you show that you indeed did "supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page"? No, the AIV report does not count. Huon (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2016 (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.

⁓ Hello 71 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

4a. I make many tens of edits per hour with Huggle, and only check WP:AIV maybe once an hour. Instead of jumping to the block, maybe send a talk page message? ⁓ Hello 71 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

5. 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F has four talk page warnings, two of which were not even added by me. I have zero. Maybe if you're seeing "everyone and their pet dog" saying something, it's a good idea to reconsider blocking a Wikipedia veteran with flags. ⁓ Hello 71 16:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

4b. For the record, while I do understand that account existence time and edit counts do not inherently bestow authority, they do serve decently as an initial indicator of good faith, which is the reason why autoconfirmed and extendedconfirmed access levels exist. ⁓ Hello 71 16:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

4c. Not only did you provide no talk page warning, you provided no timely warning at all. You responded on WP:AIV at :13:29. I made one edit to J. E. B. Stuart High School (to revert vandalism, I might add) at :13:31, then made one edit to Template:Steven Spielberg at :15:14. You then blocked me at :16:17. In other words, you expect me to concurrently fight vandalism and check for comments at WP:AIV every 2 minutes and 49 seconds, and that's taking the generous difference to block time instead of the more reasonable difference to edit time. ⁓ Hello 71 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: so they can respond. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I do believe that jumping to this block was a bit unnecessary, especially considering the fact that this user had received no warnings for 3RR. Also, the guideline WP:FILMNAV, has completely nothing to do with the edits that the IP was making. They subsequently used this guideline to remove dates from infoboxes, yet if I understand this guideline correctly, nothing is mentioned about this. Also, they did not explain why they were removing these dates, other than I am not vandalizing. I'm just sticking to the WP:FILMNAV. Though, I do not know about the IP hopping, and if this IP is evading a block or not... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, it looks like @Robsinden: had also reverted this IP and had warned them too, so maybe they have another insight into this... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. ⁓ Hello 71 16:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm astounded that a Wikipedian with nine years' standing needs an explanation of what 3RR is and why edit-warring is bad before a preventative block becomes necessary. I looked at your talk page archives and find they are full of unanswered complaints, including from editors I strongly respect, which in my view makes a block even more important as you haven't convinced me you take dispute resolution as seriously as you should. The block is not forever; you need to calm down before you can resume editing, in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I will assume, as you hastily did (and apparently refuse to acknowledge), that you read all of my comments posted just minutes before yours. The majority of such complaints, as you term them, are from editors whose sole edits could at best be described as "borderline disruptive". The remainder, to my knowledge, have all been responded to on that user's talk page, as is accepted (if not necessarily customary) behavior on the English Wikipedia since I started editing. Please point out to me any where those two are not the case, and I will be happy to elaborate or correct my mistakes. ⁓ Hello 71 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate on the first point, while I will concede that perhaps I am not as responsive as I should be to comments on my talk page and am sometimes susceptible to biting newcomers, neither of those warrant a block (rather perhaps a ban, only after extensive discussion), and neither are relevant to the issue at hand. ⁓ Hello 71 17:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the complaints (I just reviewed their archive, too) are from editors that they had reverted for vandalism, which are not established users, and had probably just wanted to complain that their edit was swiftly reverted. BTW, I came upon this issue because I had seen it at WP:AIV as I had just made a few reports there. Anyway, Hello71, it may have been a better idea to point the IP editor to the article talkpage instead of mindlessly template warning them for edit warring, which you were engaging in too. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, I would agree, and if you search my contributions, I have been known to use "take it to the talk page" or similar when reverting edit wars, in addition to (or instead of) the talk page warning. However, in this case, User:Robsinden had already pointed this out in the edit summary: Special:Diff/746579886. ⁓ Hello 71 17:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for pointing out that particular diff. From what I have seen happen in regards to edit warring, it is (for the most part) only a major issue when dealing with some sort of content dispute. In other words, when reverting obvious vandalism, edit warring shouldn't apply. Although this is more likely to fall under content dispute rather than vandalism or disruptive editing, they had clearly failed to talk about their edits, and why they were valid (they should have explained why, instead of merely saying "I am not vandalizing"). More importantly, from what I can see here, they had used a Wikipedia guideline, WP:FILMNAV to sneak in their edits, because they assumingly know that they are not considered appropriate, since they had been reverted by two different editors. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You were having a complete storm in a teacup over the use of the <small> tag on a template! If you can't see why that was a silly thing to do, I think you need some time out until you do understand. I'm off out now; another admin will look at your unblock request Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

/me bangs head on table. Not only was that not about the markup, but the dates, that was not about that template either. You haven't even solved the problem or apparently even looked at all at Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346! ⁓ Hello 71 17:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Er, I mean Special:Contributions/2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F. ⁓ Hello 71 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if you look at Template:Steven Spielberg to the exclusion of all the other (overwhelming) evidence, you'll note that I wasn't even the first in that war either! ⁓ Hello 71 17:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I was having no such "storm", but using rollback for the reason that it was granted to me in the first place: "to revert widespread edits which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia", as defined by WP:ROLLBACK. ⁓ Hello 71 17:28, 28 October 2016 (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).

Hello71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block will run out in a few hours anyway, but I'm going to decline this unblock request for a couple of reasons. Firstly, much of this is a WP:NOTTHEM type of argument that isn't about your own conduct.

I agree, and perhaps that could be worded better. However, that is only in the context of reasoned arguments, such as the point regarding the at best "unhelpful" edit summaries left by the other user in question.

You also highlight the fact that you were not warned. Yet you warned your opponent that being engaged in an edit war might see them blocked - so unless you didn't read the warnings you handed out you should have been well aware of what edit warring may lead to. You can hardly claim ignorance.

This, to be honest, is a minor point in my argument as a whole, which perhaps wasn't clear. My main point is that it is well-established that counter-vandalism work is a reasonable use of the rollback tool, and that in my view, it was clear what this was. In my opinion, a reasonable person, looking at all of the evidence presented, would say that it is at worst an unclear case, and that some type of discussion prior to the block hammer would have been appropriate.

Finally, regarding your much greater experience (which is rather hard to judge for IP editors whose IP may not be static), in those nine years you should have learned how not to edit war. Yet you still seem to be convinced that reverting over and over again was the right course of action. It wasn't.

Again, I have seen no concrete evidence (basically, diffs and history) supporting this viewpoint, whereas both Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 and I have shown what I believe constitutes extensive evidence to support the opposite.

As an aside, I'm somewhat concerned that you're linking to WP:Rollback and quoting half a sentence without noticing that the sentence comes with caveats you did not respect - or can you show that you indeed did "supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page"? No, the AIV report does not count.

As explained in the admittedly long discussion above, "User:Robsinden had already pointed this out in the edit summary: Special:Diff/746579886". Such would have been visible if looking at prev diffs of Special:Contributions/2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F, which is the only way that someone would see my edit summaries too. Furthermore, I actually thought this was closer to the first reason; "to revert obvious vandalism", given the arguments made above by both Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 and I. ⁓ Hello 71 13:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: supporting (although not conclusively) my argument that it was vandalism is the fact that that IP was later blocked for sockpuppeting. Supporting my argument that they were bad changes that needed to be reverted, if not necessarily outright vandalism, is the fact that at least three other users agree with me, either in words or actions: Special:Contributions/2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F, User:DRAGON BOOSTER, and User:MarnetteD. ⁓ Hello 71 13:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If you need me to cite specific evidence that the edits constitute "obvious vandalism", hints are the use of the phrase "why are you being a hypocrite?" in edit summaries, and the entirely nonsensical "dude, that doesn't work. It fails the Stop! this fails WP:FILMNAV please stop adding years, they're just in the way.", and the disregard for talk page warnings. ⁓ Hello 71 13:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please include a 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.

Another administrator will review the new request (or, if that does not happen in time, the block will run out in an hour or so anyway). I'll just note that while Rollback indeed is meant as a tool to quickly revert obvious vandalism, this was - even though it appears it was disruptive editing by a block-evading user - not obvious vandalism, particularly not the template edits. I rather don't think an edit summary left by someone else on a different page for edits that are not obviously related counts as "you supply an explanation in an appropriate location"; would you say it does?

Regarding the block itself, I fail to see - either in the original unblock request or the new one - any indication that you agree to not behave in the same way again the next time. All I see is you invoking IAR and stating that since you're an experienced editor you should have simply been told that edit warring is not OK. Again, as an editor with nine years of experience you already should have known that without a need to specifically warn you, and indeed you did know that already. When you edit war while already knowing that edit warring is not acceptable, I fail to see why a discussion of your conduct should be required before stopping you. Huon (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism now. Vandalism is deliberately making Wikipedia worse - edit warring, incivilty, and other types of disruption are not. If I catch you violating 3RR again, the next block will be for a week. I frankly don't care if the IP has confessed to murdering Jimmy Hoffa, we are discussing your behaviour here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To quote the lead of Wikipedia:Vandalism (an actual policy) in its entirety (to avoid further claims of "cherry-picking words"):

Vandalism is the proper name for any malicious edit which attempts to reverse the main goal of the project of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of diverse knowledge in many languages.
The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
There, of course, exists more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.
Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.
Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued).
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

In what could be described as an inverted pyramid format, the first part of the page is the most important, and the rest must be interpreted in light of that. You cannot yourself cherry-pick the words "edit warring ... is not vandalism" to say that violations of 3RR are de facto not vandalism. In this case, as I have stated on multiple occasions, several factors led me to believe based on my experience that the user was engaging in bad faith behavior (WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism)."), including the entirely nonsensical edit summaries typical of vandals. ⁓ Hello 71 19:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pending Changes expansion RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pending Changes expansion RfC. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hello71. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)