User talk:104.247.235.54

September 2023
Hello, I'm Tetrainn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to National Police (France) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Tetrainn (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to German Army (1935–1945). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Panzer (disambiguation), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Denniss (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for block evasion. 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:. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.

Vandalism templates and block review
I don't believe that any of the three vandalism templates on the page of this user (who started today) are well-founded per WP:Vandalism, and I am requesting a review of this editor's editing status.

The term vandalism has a specific meaning when referring to a type of edit at Wikipedia, which may not correspond to the everyday usage in English. This leads to many edits being labeled "vandalism" by well-meaning users who are not aware of this distinction.

Without necessarily supporting all of this user's edits, I would like to point out that the vandalism templates placed above in good faith by various users are invalid, because vandalism is not involved in any of the articles listed. Point by point: I reverted an edit by this editor at Template:Vichy France, where they reordering some nav template links, and chose French instead of English for one of them, in a template that has plenty of French entries, and it's not always clear whether English or French is the better choice. Once again, not an improvement—but that's just my opinion—but not vandalism. (And if they wished to, they could argue their case at template talk, and it would deserve a response.)
 * 1) National Police (France), rev. 1177175807 – not vandalism. I probably would argue against this edit as not an improvement, but it is debatable, and it's possible a user could defend it. (I think they'd end up on the short end of that debate, but nevertheless, it's their right to attempt it.)
 * 2) German Army (1935–1945)
 * 3) * (diff)  –  not vandalism. Dropped one army group (Brandenburgers) from section , added two others, including one of them using a direct link to de-wiki, prohibited by WP:ELNO. Not vandalism.
 * 4) * rev. 1177206189 – not vandalism. In this edit, the link to Brandenburgers was removed again from section, where it belongs. Not an improvement, imho, but not vandalism. Maybe early stage, partial edit-warring.
 * 5) Panzer (disambiguation)
 * 6) * (diff) – linked 'Panzer' (a redirect) in an entry already having a blue link, contrary to MOS:DABBLUE, an arcane guideline point that many experienced editors are not familiar with. Added four additional entries beginning with 'Panzer-' (Panzerwaffe, etc.), which I believe is contrary to WP:PARTIAL, again, not obvious, and not vandalism.
 * 7) * rev. 1177205836 – after the edit above was undone, they reverted to reinstall it. Step one of edit-warring, but not vandalism.

There are other edits by this user that have been reverted that I have not examined, but at this point, the templating above feels like a piling-on of a new user without strong evidence and against WP:BITE. I see no clear evidence of serious, intentional violations of guidelines or policy. Imho, they need guidance, not blocks. I'm requesting another look by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The block is for block evasion, not vandalism.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, I missed that; that's a completely different story. IP 104, you need to deal with that first. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. 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:. Aoidh (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.