User talk:2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7


 * What does this have to do with me, exactly? At any rate, you're adding people to categories that duplicate other categories that the same person is already in, and removing people from categories that they do belong in with no explanation — so how is that disruptive?
 * For example, a person does not need to be added to "Canadian X" if she's already in a subcategory for "X from [Canadian province]" — and "People from X" categories are not applied only on the basis of where the person was born, and most certainly are also applied on the basis of where the person had her adult career. So a person is not removed from a "from Ontario" category just because she was born outside of Ontario — if she lived in Ontario when she did the thing that made her notable enough to have an article at all, then she is from Ontario regardless of whether she was or wasn't born there.
 * So, again, how is what you're doing not disruptive, and what does any of it have to do with me? Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's totally not disruptive and it's not a battleground. I am 100% positive that is not a disruptive edit. User:Lavalizard101 is accuse me of vandalism and disruptive edits. I was putting the category at article Alyssa Nicole Pallett and the article says businesswoman. I put "Category:Businesspeople from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador" and "businesswoman" is mentioned in the article and cited. Could you talk to User:Lavalizard101 to stop accusing an IP for vandalism and disruptive edits. I was trying to add "Category:Businesspeople from St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador" before User:Lavalizard101 removing my edit. I want an apology from User:Lavalizard101 for accusing me of vandalism and disruptive edits. User:Lavalizard101 is a British perspective. 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I never called you a vandal or accused you of vandalism. And Bearcat is right about the categories, as I have explained 3 times, each time ignored. Alyssa Nicole Pallett belongs in the parent category because she is a model AS WELL as a businesswoman thus for the purpose of categorisation its simpler for her to be in the parent category. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that I did not ask for you to be blocked. I went to have lunch and came back to create an WP:ANEW report when I noticed you were range blocked for DE by . Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I want an apology from User:Jauerback and you User:Lavalizard101 for accusing me of vandalism and disruptive edits led to my block. I am 100% positive that is not vandalism or edit that are disruptive and it's not a battleground. User:Bearcat please talk to User:Lavalizard101 and User:jauerback. And stop sending me warning messages User:lavalizard101 I already made explanation from past edits. Businesswoman is mentioned in the article and the edit would have been correct. 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And again ignoring the explanation, and again I never called you a vandal or accused you of vandalism. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are defending your edits stop sending me warning messages to me. I want an apology from you User:Lavalizard101, if you refuse to apologize to me for accusing me of vandalism and disruptive edits. User:Bearcat will be warned to you. 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will not, because they didn't do anything to warrant me "warning" them of anything. But if you don't start listening to what's being said to you, I will revise the block so that you can't even edit your own talk page anymore (which is an option I do have). Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Right now, the only regret that I'm beginning to have is not making this block longer. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are defending your edits stop sending me warning messages to me. I want an apology from you User:Lavalizard101 that I never made disruptive edits and removing my good edits. If you can apologize to User:Lavalizard101 for accusing me for bad edits. All of my past aedits are all good. I will apologize to you back User:Lavalizard101, if you refuse to apologize to me for accusing me of vandalism and disruptive edits. There will be big problems! 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Jauerback I am 100% positive that all of my edits are all good and they are all not disruptive edits. Please review the Wikipedia guideline "This is not a battleground" User:jauerback. 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Jauerback, User:Lavalizard101 has defended it's edits by removing my good edits. I still want an apology from User:Lavalizard101 and I will apologize back to User:Lavalizard101. 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! Now my unblock is declined! User:Lavalizard101 you refuse to apologize to me! User:Lavalizard101 you are the worst user! You are attacking me and abusing me by sending me warning messages! You are such a bad influence! You're are such an bad editor User:Lavalizard101! Do not edit ever again User:Lavalizard101! 2001:569:74E3:4000:9D08:99A6:C910:70D7 (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that this is the same user as 2001:569:74E3:4000:40AC:72D:9A8F:EB92, the chronology of edits across both IPs suggests to me a predominant intent to contribute in good faith, hampered by an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding categories and block evasion.

The earlier IP's first five contributions all appear to be constructive. I note that after being blocked all the remaining live edits by the earlier IP have been reverted by the blocking administrator. This has caused some clearly helpful edits, such as [1], [2] and [3], to be reverted.

The IP and Lavalizard101 enter conflict over the correct use of article categories. This seems to be the result of the IP not being aware of how to apply article categories correctly, rather than an intention to be disruptive, at least at first. Lavalizard101 reverts these changes but does not initially explain why in their edit summary. The IP reintroduces their changes and, after a second revert, Lavalizard101 issues the IP a notice on unconstructive editing, including an explanation about usage of article categories.

This sequence of events seems to cause the IP to feel they are being targeted by Lavalizard101, while Lavalizard101 seems to believe the IP is being intentionally disruptive. This descends into an edit war. Lavalizard101 continues to try to explain why the IP's edits aren't correct, but only by using edit summaries, and issues warnings about disruptive editing on the IP's talk page. The IP attempts to discuss the issue with Lavalizard101 here, but is ignored.

In my personal view, this situation could have been avoided if more effort had been undertaken to reach out to the IP and explain to them why their edits weren't helpful in a non-confrontational, friendly manner. Certainly after the IP left a message on Lavalizard101's talk page a conversation should have begin. Conversely, the IP could have helped their position by trying to engage with Lavalizard101's explanation on the correct use of article categories, instead of standing their ground. They should also not have attempted to circumvent their first block, and making a critical reference to Lavalizard101's nationality is clearly not acceptable.

This situation has obviously continued to deteriorate on this talk page after the events which led to the block. The IP needs to calm down, but, overall, I feel they were not initially afforded enough benefit of the doubt or treated in a sufficiently friendly and welcoming manner. Were they to further appeal their block, and if the IP commits to engaging with other Wikipedians in a calm and constructive manner, including regarding the correct use of article categories and other Wikipedia policies, my personal view is that their block should be shortened or removed. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That talk page notification given by the IP is not an attempt to discuss given that they attempted on the second IP to claim the second IP was another user (in the edit summaries) immediately before making said talk page notification, also there was no attempt to circumvent a first block as the range block was the first block. The situation has only detiorated because the IP has refused to listen and instead doubled down, I only claimed the IP was being disruptive (note that I never said it was intentional disruptive) after the IPs fourth revert. The IP pinged bearcat then after bearcat's input decided to double down on their claims. The IP was confrontational from the start, even before the block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the IP truly wanted to discuss they wouldn't have added it back claiming to be another user. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP has clearly tried to mislead others and benefit their case by pretending to be a second user supporting the first. It's always hard to judge intent; my personal reading of the situation is that this is a poor decision as a result of feeling aggrieved, rather than a malicious act. If that is the case, I think it's likely that the situation might have de-escalated had you responded to their talk page message. Of course, my judgement may be wrong.
 * More broadly, I feel an attempt to reach out (beyond the use of edit summaries) early in the process might have avoided the situation from progressing as it did in the first place. At the least, it would have afforded the IP a certain courtesy. I appreciate your reading of the situation is that the IP was confrontational from the beginning; I agree that they immediately started trying to stand their ground. Even in such a situation, however, they might have subsequently returned to contributing constructively if they had been directly engaged with in a patient and friendly manner. Reading their messages it's undeniable they are upset.
 * My reading of your engagement with the IP is that after a certain point you determined they were being intentionally disruptive and that this affected how you continued to interact with them. If that was not the case, I apologise. Thanks for pointing out the range block. I apologise for suggesting the IP attempted to evade their first block. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you did attempt to explain why you were reverting the IP's edits in your first warning to them, in addition to using edit summaries. Apologies for not mentioning this. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)