User talk:49.184.52.72

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, Jobkeeper and Jobseeker are welfare. They call them this, it started during Covid. This is what it's called in Australia. Please think before you revert. 49.184.52.72 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The warnings left on this page and edit histories say otherwise. If you resume making disruptive edits when this block expires, the next block will be for a longer duration. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No far from it. Your edit summary and the history does not show you attempting to have a conversation in regards to that Welfare article.49.184.52.72 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this user's contributions, I'm not seeing much in the way of wilful disruption but perhaps some wayward edits from a newcomer who is trying to be bold and should not be bitten for it.
 * The Welfare edit perhaps should have been placed within the Jobseeker section of that article and the edit summary was overly opinionated, but the information was correctly referenced, relevant to the article and not already covered there. The Guernsey map mini-edit war could have been avoided by discussing it on the article's talk page, but again appears to have been well-intentioned.
 * However, the fact the user continued to edit in the same way after a final warning is a concern and does validate a short block. My view is that a 48-hour block is overly harsh and my recommendation is that the block is reduced in length to 24 hours or less. As the blocking admin is engaged here I shall leave the decision to User:Ohnoitsjamie as to whether to implement that recommendation or request a second opinion at Administrators' noticeboard.
 * 49.184.52.72, please know that I made far worse mistakes when I first joined Wikipedia. This might be a bad start but you are very welcome here, I hope you'll consider creating an account and look forward to seeing you around the community. WaggersTALK  14:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Waggers, thank you for your help. I do hope that other Administrators learn from you too.49.184.52.72 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with reducing the duration (as I've done), but I stand by the block, per the obstinacy and borderline lack of competence evidenced by edits like this (low quality map that shows a small part of Normandy) and this (POV, over-generalization, etc). The edit history as a whole doesn't show much promise in terms of useful contributions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 24 hours is good.49.184.52.72 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)