User talk:79.17.172.126

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I stopped and asked for consensus, the Ip, probably Xiaomichael keep vandalizing with a different IP even when two other, administrators if I'm not mistaken intervened. It's still trolling on discusion page. It doesn't seem fair that I'm punished and he keep doing damage79.17.172.126 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia, such as that caused by your edit warring. See WP:NOTTHEM; your request should only discuss your actions and what you will do differently. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

In "Restoring version pre vandalism by puppet account" you have, perhaps inadvertently, reverted the edit that included "chocolate nemesis" and fixed the reference to the "Better than Bread Keto" webpage. The revert of the second item has reintroduced the red error " {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): |first= has generic name (help)" in the list of references. Maidenhair (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix it? Without restoring the puppet account version ? 79.17.172.126 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yonasse (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight, @331dot Ip edit warring again 2A02:8388:8C04:1500:6C9C:8259:8ECA:C7D8 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Xiaomichel. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is modifying his page to sort out my comment which I made to answer to his baseless accusations 79.17.172.126 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i should of put the template for edit warring whoops ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is he allowed to do that? 79.17.172.126 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its their talk page ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So on this talk page I can modyfing as I want, WP: Civ to be danmed? 79.17.172.126 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you could remove my edit if you want to cause its a notice and you already seen it so do what you want but if you are blocked you can't remove blocked notices or unblock requests ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or someone else please look at my request? 79.17.172.126 (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd literally come off a block for edit-warring three days earlier. You edit-warred a section break, over a period of an hour and a half, twenty-five times on someone else's talk page with that editor. I'll unblock if you'll agree to create an account and use it exclusively. The IP editing around these topics is wasting huge amounts of other editors' time. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because he kept accusing me and modified it to fit his accusatoon, which he kept going. It was a mistake to edit warring, I know, it but I stopped as soon as I saw the warning. Couldn't be lenient and unblock me? 79.17.172.126 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unblock you if you'll create an account and use it exclusively to edit. The IP editing around these topics is wasting huge amounts of other editors' time. Valereee (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not actively trying to vandalize, I was answering to a comment he made,he then tried to separate my answer and give a label he mentioned before. I was wrong to edit, but it didn't seem fair to me. I stopped when I was notified

Decline reason:

The blocking admin has provided an avenue to an unblock, but you don't address that in your appeal. Temperament is a concern here. Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.