User talk:208.53.231.158

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Billy Mitchell (gamer); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Responding to edit warring accusations

@Chaheel Riens: As I've explained in the talk page comment at this link, I was using the edit summary to clarify that, per the cited sources, the internal dispute at Twin Galaxies only involved three score performances, a fact the article still doesn't convey well. If I'd been edit warring for its own sake, why wouldn't I have restored the content the second time you removed it? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I've gotten a message here that says this: "Editing from 208.53.224.0/21 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Drmies‬ for the following reason(s): disruptive editing, SPIP".

What's "SPIP"?

208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You like it? It's a new one, I came up with it today: "Single Purpose IP". I should really run it by User:Sergecross73, to see what they have to say. Anyway, I thought the ANI thread was clear enough: you're essentially here to screw around with one trivial issue, and you were harassing another user in the process. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks for the response. I like it more now that I know what it means. In the talk page comment at this link, you say the following: "I didn't look all that far into the history, so there may be more rangeblocks that can be applied there; I'll be happy to check if this happens again. For instance, I saw an IPv6 in there but didn't look at the edit, or if there were more." What's an "IPv6", and what's its significance in this context? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of the term. Very fitting. But yes, I really wish you would have listened to me. I told you so many times that you were breaking policy and that AN would result in a

WP:BOOMERANG. I wish you would just listen to me when I inform you of policy. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sergecross73: I wish you wouldn't routinely butt in and disrupt my conversations with other users to insinuate lies about me for months on end, such as the lie that I don't listen to you. I'm hoping Drmies is better than you are at giving honest answers to straightforward questions. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the discussion. Drmies directly addressed me and tagged me. And all of our other interactions have been on public boards, generally when I’m tagged. But that said, no problem. I have nothing left to discuss with you. I’ll leave you be. Sergecross73 msg me 04:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: He tagged you, but he never "directly addressed" you, and he definitely never asked for your opinion on whether I listen. You brought that to the discussion on your own. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm still following up on your block of my account. In the talk page comment at this link, you say the following: "I didn't look all that far into the history, so there may be more rangeblocks that can be applied there; I'll be happy to check if this happens again. For instance, I saw an IPv6 in there but didn't look at the edit, or if there were more."

As I'd previously asked you here, what's an "IPv6", and what's its significance in this context? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• An IPv6--well, there's an online encyclopedia that explains it better than I can. Give it a try: IPv6. The meaning of that in this context is irrelevant; what is relevant is that I was wondering is if that IPv6, and maybe other IPs in the edit history, were also instances of you editing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks for the response. If you'd like to link to a diff, I'd be glad to tell you whether any edit was mine. I've been trying to keep power to our router 24/7 during this controversy to reduce the likelihood of our service provider assigning us a different IP. If it does, my understanding is that I'll no longer be able to comment on this talk page without violating Wikipedia's policy against block evasion.

Is the editing at this link the basis for the block on my account? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I would call that complaint a sufficient cause; if it hadn't been preceded by the disruption in the article on on the article talk page, I might not have made it a lengthy rangeblock. It certainly was a kind of straw breaking the camel's back. Both the complaint at ANI (with its personal attack) and the article/talk page behavior are varieties of disruption. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe the block on my account is the result of a misunderstanding or other irregularity, and the blocking administrator no longer appears to be responding to my requests[1][2] for clarification. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. It's pretty clear you're wasting people's time. No one owes you continual responses, and why you're blocked is more than evident in the block message, Drmies's replies, and the ANI boomerang closure itself. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2020 (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.

@Ferret: Am I allowed to comment inside the unblock template box? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked TPA on this IP (but not the /21) as this line of constant questioning and pinging has nothing to do with submitting a proper unblock appeal. @Drmies and Sergecross73: as info. -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ferret. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you both. Talking from experience, I can tell you that these questions would have continued on indefinitely, and none of them would have any effect on being unblocked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]