Why are you adding disambiguation links? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

'Edit warring'? No, I simply added a template which had a disambiguation link - When it was pointed out, I removed that link and added it back. 'Unexplained edits'? No, it's obvious, there is a template with hyperlinks, some of the articles did not transclude the template. 'useless edits'? That's a matter of opinion, I was being helpful and completing the job. 92.71.60.61 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Almost all of your last 50 edits were engaging in an edit war. If you make a new unblock request, please show where you obtained consensus to make those edits. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2025 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, please read WP:Guide to appealing blocks - if an admin was concerned enough to block you then there is probably an issue. Look through your edit history, the number of reversions, repeated edits etc. Besides, even if you're right, you still can't edit war over it.

If you don't understand why you were blocked, you'll continue doing the same thing(s) you were blocked for and admins won't take that risk. You'll only be unblocked if you can reassure the admins that you understand why you were blocked and that the problematic editing won't happen again, otherwise you're just wasting your own time by appealing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why I was blocked. There never was any edit war. Let me set out the timeline.

1. I noticed there was a template with around 300 links, and this was transcluded onto around 250 of the pages. ie about 50 of the links did not have reciprocation
2. I added the template to most of these 50 pages, in order to complete the set
3. JacktheBrown didn't like the disambiguation link that was already hidden in the template, but rather than fixing that, he individually undid every one of my edits
4. I fixed the template, then went about re-adding the template to the same pages again
5. This was wrongly classified by a bot as "possible vandalism Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits"
6. Drmies stated that "i don't see the point of these", presumably meaning the template that was transcluded in each case. That's fine, he doesn't need to. But if he doesn't understand a topic, it's better not to edit those pages, especially without discussion.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Per above, there was nothing disruptive about any of the edits 92.71.60.61 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per above, there was nothing disruptive about any of the edits [[Special:Contributions/92.71.60.61|92.71.60.61]] ([[User talk:92.71.60.61#top|talk]]) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per above, there was nothing disruptive about any of the edits [[Special:Contributions/92.71.60.61|92.71.60.61]] ([[User talk:92.71.60.61#top|talk]]) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per above, there was nothing disruptive about any of the edits [[Special:Contributions/92.71.60.61|92.71.60.61]] ([[User talk:92.71.60.61#top|talk]]) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You failed to follow my directions. Please point to where you obtained consensus to make your changes. --Yamla (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No explicit "consensus", it's a completely uncontentious template which is already on hundreds of pages just like these. The only objection was because one of the links in the template went to a disambiguation page, so the edits were marked as such. That link is now removed. If there wasn't such a high volume of edits this would never have been flagged as a problem.

In future could you communicate a little more? Like leaving notes to editors explaining what you're doing, and edit summaries? PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did? On 20 January I left a message on the talk page for JacktheBrown.

As for edit summaries? It's completely obvious what I did and why. I transcluded a template (ie added 15 characters!). It was reverted because of a stray disambiguation link. I fixed it and added it back. That's literally it. But it had to happen 50 times in quick succession. See something like Gold Fields. I can only assume the it was autoflagged for disambiguation a second time due to some sort of caching error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.60.61 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]