1.129.106.68

October 2017

Hello, I'm Gaelan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Mouthwash— 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. (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 03:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

August 2019

Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CLCStudent (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2019 (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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Call me cynical, but again Wikipedia editors reviewing an unblock request have failed to address the substance, and instead point to technicalities that they can use as an excuse to avoid the substantial basis for revising the block. See the unblock request I submitted at User_talk:1.129.110.252. (Of course, due to the silliness of the range block, I am unable to edit that same talk page because it nominally belongs to a "different user". Note that I couldn't get back on the same IP address, because I don't choose my own IP address; it is allocated on the fly by the ISP.) Back to the complaint: one of my main points was that the block was excessively long, and disproportionate. The answer came back "This block will not be removed based on arguments about the process". How about addressing the issue for once?
In actual fact, I would have been satisfied with an answer like "A compromise is in order, we will shorten the block to 1 month, instead of the original 3 months". But no, Wikipedia unblock request reviewers have yet to show any sort of flexibility or common sense. (Are you an Wikipedia unblock request reviewer who currently feels offended by this criticism? Don't take it personally unless you are indeed inflexible....)
What this assessment seems to be saying is that, for example, one single act of vandalism on a shared IP could be responded to with a block of millions of IP addresses for many months, and there's apparently no argument that can be made to get such a block either lifted or modified, regardless of how reasonable it is, or how much it deviates from either specific WP protocols or general WP guidelines.
It is so disappointing to see over and over again that this aspect of WP is so poorly managed.
—DIV (1.129.106.68 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. The block is not based on a single act of vandalism. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2019 (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.

P.S. Not part of the unblock request, but it would be nice if the unblock template didn't get 'corrupted' if internal WP links were included as part of the "reason".
Also, the original unblock request was formatted with a numbered list in my submission, but got corrupted somehow to 'bare' hash symbols (#). Maybe the line-returns were stripped out after I submitted it. It's not the biggest problem in the world, but it does make the "reason" hard to read now. —DIV (1.129.106.68 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

User:331dot, you have again not addressed the substance. The request is to review the block with a view to either removing it or to changing the terms of the block. (If the "unblock" template is not the correct one to request revising the duration of the block, then please be constructive in the reply and refer to the correct template; if there is no appropriate template, then that is another failure of the review process.) So the claim that this is "not an unblock request" is not an appropriate response. I also never claimed that there was only one act of vandalism: that is either a deliberate or careless misreading of what I wrote. Finally, you have still not addressed the core complaint, which is that the block is disproportionate, and against the WP policies and guidelines on implementing blocks. I request a review by someone other than User:331dot.
—DIV (1.129.106.68 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

Decline reason:

In your previous request, you said that you were looking for a compromise. One was given to you at User talk:1.129.110.252 with the option of creating an account elsewhere or going through ACC. This is an acceptable compromise and folks with accounts are using this range. We don't haggle with IP editors. Thank you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2019 (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.

Someone else will review this, but you said "What this assessment seems to be saying is that, for example, one single act of vandalism on a shared IP could be responded to with a block of millions of IP addresses for many months"(my emphasis). I was making it clear that your example is incorrect in this case. You are also still arguing process and not the merits, which is an indicator you are the target. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to EndNote has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: EndNote was changed by 1.129.106.68 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87114 on 2020-10-14T03:13:40+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at EndNote. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 2601:200:E:F73F:916:F929:535F:84C5 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to 1990—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

---