User talk:92.1.182.171

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Maria Sharapova, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BanRay 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, could you tell me how it is not constructive? Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is usually described as obvious, disruptive sock puppetry and will definitely land you a block if you continue, so I would very strongly recommend you to stop. Your edits will be reverted anyway. BanRay 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Maria Sharapova constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

BanRay - if you're implying I'm Musiclover565, then sorry, but I'm not. An ip check would confirm this, I'm sure. I just think his(?) edits provide more clarity, is tidier and more encyclopaedic, and my additional edits that I made... the "Off-court" section... further achieve this I feel. so I can't see how it is vandalism. Milk's Favourite Cookie - please tell me how it is vandalism? I'm just trying to improve the article, aren't we encouraged to? 92.1.182.171 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dear, but you do not revert 62 constructive edits without giving a good reason. If you are not a sockpuppet, which I, personally, really doubt, especially since you both come from the same town and use the same internet provider, I will remind you that Musiclover565 was banned for doing exactly the same what you are doing at the moment. And no, I haven't complained to anyone about your edits. The reason your edits are constantly reverted by other experienced editors is because they constitute nothing but vandalism. I will once again strongly recommend you to revert your edits, otherwise I will have to leave you another warning. If you still find my actions unjustified, WP:AN/I would be the best place to complain, although we both know it won't do you much good. Take care. BanRay 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Your first comment does not make sense. You say don't revert constructive edits without a good reason - then why have you reverted mine without providing a good reason? I highly doubt that I come from the same town as Musiclover565 (would you even be able to tell if you're not an admin?). And you did complain to Milk's Favourite Cookie about my edits.
Again, I would appreciate it if the harrassment stopped, and you left me to make constructive edits in peace. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I have never been in touch with Milk's Favorite Cookie, let alone complaining to him. And you are more than welcome to continue with constructive edits, reverting 64 edits to restore an old version of the page against the consensus of other editors, however, is not considered constructive. Such edits will be reverted either by me or by other editors. BanRay 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Maria Sharapova, you will be blocked from editing. You reverted a total of 64 edits, with your recent edit to the page. This behavior should stop. BanRay 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BanRay 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been blocked for a period of 72 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "It has now been established that BanRay was mistaken in believing I was vandalising. He believed that I had reverted 64 edits; however, I pointed out that the edit logs showed this wasn't true. I only edited the 2003-2007 sections on the Sharapova, in which, none of the 64 edits took place in. Therefore, I believe my edits were genuinely constructive, and don't really understand why I've been blocked. I'd also like to point out I repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue with BanRay, but was largely ignored; he kept deleting my comments from his page."

Decline reason: "As per WP:ANI, this is not an accurate summary of the state of things. There's also serious concern that this IP address is a sockpuppet of Musiclover565 (talk · contribs), previously blocked for edit warring on that article. As such, I am loathe to lift the block. — Yamla (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "But it IS an accurate summary of the state of things. I pointed out to BanRay that of the 64 edits he was speaking of, none of them affected the 2003-2007 section (the only parts I removed material from). The only edits to the 2008 section were Fed Cup results, which I merely moved to another section. And I removed no material from any other part of the article. Please, if you don't believe me, check the edit logs, because they support what I am saying. As for being a sock puppet - I'm NOT Musiclover565. I know you've only got my word for it, but I'm really not. If BanRay is correct in saying I come from the same town as ML565 (which I doubt) then there are about 80,000 people living in my town - therefore, it's perhaps improbable that two people out of 80,000 would edit the same article, but not impossible, don't you agree?"

Decline reason: "The sockpuppet case is just too strong to be dismissed so blithely ... the geographically similar IPs, the interest in Maria Shapraova and the tendentious editing. It's a three-day block ... let it pass and learn. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "So, I'm being blocked for perhaps living in the same town as a blocked user (something which has not even yet been confirmed). Nice to have an insight into Wikipedia's clearly fair and balanced proceedures!"

Decline reason: "It is only 3 days, and please read the above reasons. After the block expires, I recommend you create an account to avoid further problems like this. — Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.