Ipadguy
Somewhere| User Page | Talk Page |
January 2016
change
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ipadguy (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
Sorry I did not mean any harm
Decline reason:
Considering that you have been similarly warned on EN regarding this, I don't think that your repeated issues on this wiki is justified and can be considered an honest mistake. -- Chenzw Talk 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
For any admin reviewing this, here are some specifics. I only had to go back a week to find all these: there are undoubtedly others before that. I recommend looking through the history of this talk page to see other things that Ipadguy has been warned about.
- deleting comments from User talk:Auntof6
- restored warnings on User talk:94.12.81.251 that that user had removed, even though Ipadguy himself removes every message left on his own talk page
- reverting non-vandalism as vandalism
- and leaving vandalism warnings for changes that were not vandalism
- various on User talk:73.47.71.127 when the user blanked his own talk page, also reported this user at WP:VIP for this
- various on User talk:92.15.98.158
- other incorrect warnings
- at User talk:92.4.46.34 (for Thorny devil) - called changes "editing tests" when the changes were in good faith
- message about leaving controversial info on a BLP, when it was not controversial, just incorrect
- "only" warning when no other warnings had been left, after the user created a bad page; also reported this user as a vandalism-only account at WP:VIP when the user had made no other edits
- other problem changes
- said change didn't make sense, when it did
- said change was "right before", when it had Galileo doing something after his death
- undoing valid updates
- adding "more sources" tag to stub article that had two sources already -- when another editor undid this change, Ipadguy put it back and it had to be undone again
- removed all blank lines
- redirected page to another page that wasn't the same
- inappropriate warning on his talk page notice ("Warning, Do NOT edit this page unless you really, really, need too.")
- overcategorizing many pages related to Apple Inc.
I didn't even try to analyze the edit warring complained about at User talk:94.12.81.251. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are many examples out there, but I'll add this revert to the mix. The IP user adds a period in the wrong spot creating a red link. So, Ipadguy just reverts it rather than making the logical fix. So quick to the trigger, so inappropriate in actions. I fully agree with this block as I brought up at Auntof6's talk page earlier today. I'll allow others to come along to review the block, though. Only (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to have the proper judgement/understanding of our rules to contribute here, despite already having contributed on EN before. 3 cases of severely assuming bad faith in less than half a day is ridiculous, and turns out that I am not the only one who takes issue with his approach to his user talk page.
- Note to administrators: per en:WP:REMOVED, declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block may not be removed by the concerned user. Chenzw Talk 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Endlessly reposting invalid warnings on my talk page
change
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "User talk:94.12.81.251", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleting
changeI will restore your talk messages. Deleting your messages after reading them is seriously inconvenient to anyone. Please DO NOT restore the messages. PS: I have studied the EN wiki and trying to unblock multiple times will result on a talk page ban. PokestarFan (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- @PokestarFan: Please leave restoring another user's talk messages to either that user or the admins: although it makes things difficult, users are allowed to delete most things from their own talk pages. Also, it is up to the admins to decide whether to remove talk page access: it is not automatic, even after multiple unblock requests. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- And in addition to what Auntof6 said, if you've "studied the EN wiki", then you would know that users can blank their own talk pages: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." So, Ipadguy is well within his rights to remove comments. Do not restore them, PokestarFan. Only (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Sorry @Ipadguy:.PokestarFan (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/User:Ipadguy/topicons and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 18:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)