User talk:37.152.231.40

Hello, I see you have recently left a mesage on my talk page. To elaborate on the fact that this is a new account, I am the owner of "Peter Horid 1" which I no longer use. If you need me to confirm this, I can record a video of me logging into the account. As for the autoconfirmed userbox, I have now removed it as it has only been recently that I realized that you also need 4 days on wikipedia to be autoconfirmed and not just 10 edits. I take full responsibility in this mistake. Also, do you have a wikipedia account as we might get mixed up with IPs on further conversations. Lakwat (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Be less aggressive, please
After reading through your posts at Teahouse I gave a quick look at your contribution history. I think you mean well, but your posture is incredibly combative, and you should tone it down significantly. Stuff like this talk page post or that edit summary or that one are understandable if they are one-off occurences on a bad day, but those are representative of ~30% of your edit summaries. This personal attack, alone, would probably have been enough to earn you a one-day block (if it had been reported on the day you wrote it).

I would advise that you write your messages on the internet as if you were speaking them face to face to a man with big muscles, a low intellect and a short temper. This will greatly improve how friendly the messages back will be. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is very easy to imagine on Wikipedia that I am communicating with someone with very low intellect. I'm not going to tiptoe around trying not to offend people; the quality of most articles on Wikipedia is absolutely shocking, and they are full of appallingly basic errors that many primary school children would be ashamed of. I believe that Wikipedia should aspire to way higher standards than this, and it's a disservice to the entire English-speaking world that it does not. If you are happy with the level of quality prevailing, and offended if someone says it's not good enough, then I would wonder why you are editing Wikipedia.
 * And what you described as a personal attack was not a personal attack at all. The recipient of that message may well have found it unpleasant to read. But if you think that we cannot tell people they are not competent in case they get offended by that, then you will end up with an encyclopaedia of extremely low quality. And that is what we currently have. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to say that having seen a couple of this user's edit summaries I can immediately tell that they probably need to take some time away from Wikipedia. It seems that for whatever reason seeing minor errors in others' writing is deeply upsetting them and they're lashing out as a result. I don't think that they're coming from a place of bad faith or ill intention, but ultimately aggressive edit summaries calling other editors incompetent are not constructive. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, if it does not bother you that most Wikipedia articles are flawed in the most appallingly basic way, I wonder why you are editing Wikipedia. Do you want it to get better, or are you just content for there to be ever more of it? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Needlessly insulting people doesn't make for a better encyclopaedia. And so long as the statement included is well sourced I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine. I and many other people ultimately treat Wikipedia as a directory of relevant sources on a subject. If an article says "bridge was built over river in 18th century" then the only edit summary you need to leave upon changing it to "the bridge was built over the river in the 18th century" is simply the word "copyedit". Again, this is something which is clearly making you very agitated in some way or another, and out of sincere concern I have to recommend that you try getting away from Wikipedia for a while. Watch a movie, play a video game, read a novel. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine" - truly astonishing. I do care, and if you don't, then why on earth are you editing Wikipedia? It's supposed to be a high-quality reference work, not a scrappily-written pseudo-directory. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it's obvious that this whole matter is putting you through some strong negative emotions. I'm not particularly interested in arguing further with you because I can tell it would not be constructive or healthy. I can tell this is causing you unnecessary stress and all I can do is repeat my point that you would most likely benefit from a WP:WIKIBREAK. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your concern is misplaced. Seriously, if you do not care about the quality of Wikipedia, why on earth are you editing it? If you do not want its standards to be higher, I really think you must be doing more harm than good. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary
Blocked for no apparent reason, so I cannot bring the extraordinarily destructive edits of User:The Banner to any wider attention. They are pure vandalism. The most egregious example:, and their edit summary "Revert unhelpful edits". With that, they have restored:
 * an endorsement of what the subject of the article says, violating WP:NPOV
 * multiple bizarre repetitions of the subject's full name
 * multiple repetitions of the subject's surname when a pronoun is required
 * separation of text into incoherent fragments instead of writing in paragraphs
 * ungrammatical garbage like "...criticised for being on holiday during the A-Level results crisis however, Keegan defended herself by clarifying...", which would violate WP:NPOV even if the laughable grammar was fixed.

This editor, User:The Banner, says that they are Dutch on their user page. So perhaps they simply do not realise how bad this writing is in English. That is the only possible way I could describe their restoration of this abysmal material as something other than vandalism.

So that's the state of Wikipedia after twenty years. Millions of articles contain basic writing errors, and fixing those errors is not just not appreciated, it's actively and aggressively resisted. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of them were plain vandalism, utterly unhelpful or attacks. And you are block for a very aggressive way of acting around here. Something you nicely display here again. Do you do any self-reflection, like admitting that a life of sockpuppetry leads to many, many blocks?  The Banner  talk 09:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, none of them were vandalism. That is an out-and-out lie, as you know perfectly well. Nor were any of them "attacks", or even slightly unhelpful. All of them were extremely helpful, because they fixed very basic errors. And yet, you restored all of those basic errors. Why do you want articles to be poor quality? Why do you want that so badly that you will make false accusations of vandalism? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2021 (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.

Removing TPA to prevent further timewasting on this IP. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)