Your recent editing history at Catherine Zeta-Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted an edit war, not me. 167.98.155.178 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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.

Such wantonly dishonest accusations really should result in a lengthy block for those immoral enough to make them. 167.98.155.178 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and persistent incivility.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What edit warring? What incivility? 167.98.155.178 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You edit warred on Karl-Marx-Hof and even mention it on this page above. Your comments reflect a general incivility. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 17 March 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What? I did absolutely nothing of the sort. The only "edit war" that has been inflicted upon me involved someone undoing one of my edits without good reason, two or three times. Which comments specifically do you think reflect "general incivility"? 167.98.155.178 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Good block. Yamla (talk) 16:58, 17 March 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You haven't offered any serious justification for this block. It is evidently simply about hating IP addresses. You accuse me of edit-warring; the only situation you can be referring to is Catherine Zeta-Jones, where I made an edit which was undone by an account, simply because they didn't like it. If you cared about edit-warring, you would obviously have blocked that user as well. They were not blocked; they did not receive a warning, or even the vaguest suggestion that they should not undo people's edits without good reason. That you blocked me for two weeks makes it clear that the problem you have is with IP addresses, not edit-warring. And at the same time you accuse me of "persistent incivility", but cannot provide a single example of where I have been uncivil to anyone. 167.98.155.178 (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is now a CheckUser block with TPA revoked. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:46, 20 March 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.

And since you blocked me, another account trashed a series of carefully-explained edits I had made which significantly improved an article. They did that with a dishonest edit summary, and then made a false accusation of vandalism on this page to boot. And yet, that extremely uncivil edit-warring, which deliberately compromised the quality of an article, obviously doesn't trouble you in the slightest. I am here to make this encyclopaedia better for its readers. What exactly are you here for? 167.98.155.178 (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all to do with "hating IP users"; I would block Jimmy Wales himself if he behaved as you. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bbb23, this IP is back as this with the same problematic edits. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Beth Bonner § Recent edits. Shearonink (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Beth Bonner. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. *

• Your edit summaries are pejorative, such as
• "once again, improved writing, removed uninformative fragment"
• "reverted disruptive editor"
• "reverted incompetent repetition". - Shearonink (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Beth Bonner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shearonink (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.