Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GiantSnowman 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a valid reason in the edit summary. Don't leave snotty incorrect templates here again. 190.162.219.249 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't comment in closed off threads and don't remove other's people's comments from within those closed off threads.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:54, 16 July 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

No block is being evaded. When I complain about false allegations, it's deeply offensive to be blocked with more false allegations. Why the trolling? What exactly do you have against me? You think I'm going to go away?

Decline reason:

Obvious block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 19 July 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Obvious? How so? I was not blocked; I complained about people making false claims; I was blocked with the false claim of block evasion. Perhaps you can explain more clearly which block it's obvious to you that I was evading. 190.162.219.249 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I really can't answer that question, but it's obvious from your incivility above that Wikipedia benefits from you being blocked, at least for now. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ah yes, so if you block someone for no reason, and they get angry, then that justifies the block. And you can't work out which block I was supposedly evading so you think of another reason that I should be blocked. I'd like to remind you again that all this is a result of a false accusation of vandalism concerning these changes. I continue to hope that all of you who are partaking in this Kafka-esque bullying and harassment are having fun, and I continue to hope that eventually someone might remember that this place is supposed to be about building an encyclopaedia, not trolling the people who are still trying to do so.190.162.219.249 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A block is intended to directly affect a person, not an account or an IP. If you are blocked, as you concede above, as an IP, then editing from a different IP during your block is by definition block evasion. I trust this answers your question. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:09, 21 July 2014 (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.

Oh, the hilarity! You must be having such fun. Time was when people wanted to build an encyclopaedia and did not spend their time being as tiresome as possible to people. Why the hatred for people who actually try to improve articles? It's very weird. Anyway, no, obviously you didn't answer the question because you pretended not to understand either the question or the situation. A quick recap in case someone more intelligent passes by: I made an improvement to an article, I got reverted for no reason, I got falsely accused of vandalism, I got blocked. When the block expired, I complained about being falsely accused of things. I got blocked for block evasion. And now despite several requests, no-one will tell me which block I was supposedly evading. Funny, that.

Well, right now, obviously I am evading a block. If fuckwitted administrators decide it's fun to block for no reason and remove all possibility of complaining until 2 August, then I'm hardly going to just sit back and wait for that, am I? I'll be making more highly damaging edits like those that I made to wind wave, so tremble in fear, all of you! Improving articles is just the worst thing that can happen to this encyclopaedia so batten down the hatches, there will be blood, and who knows what havoc and destruction I might wreak next! 186.37.203.77 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted wind wave back to your edits and did some copyediting. I also reverted Blanchard Ryan to your version and expanded the lead a bit. If you've got any protected pages and you want them fixed up and (and this is the tricky bit) I or Drmies or anyone else who's been around the block a few times happen to agree with them, I'll see what I can do. I am on record saying I am not at all happy about Alan S falsely accusing you of vandalism, but worst things happen at sea, so let it go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so patronising. Your edits to wind wave have left it containing factual inaccuracies and inappropriate precision. You think I'm going to run around pleading for people like you to restore my common sense changes? When they were reverted by idiots for no reason other than to attack me? Be realistic. And big fucking deal that you are "not at all happy" about someone wilfully destroying time consuming work and lying to get someone blocked. Did you bother to do anything to stop it happening at the time? Have you warned the liar that he shouldn't behave like that? Being "not at all happy" is meaningless. If that's all you can come up with for dishonesty and destructive behaviour then you're a waste of space.

Thanks for creating the page about the long term attacks on me by the way. It's very useful. You should go through the contributions of all the IPs you've handily listed (massively incomplete btw), and see just how many changes were reverted for no reason at all. Then perhaps you'd start to imagine how much it pisses people off. 186.37.203.77 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]