User talk:82.132.249.191

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Manic Street Preachers, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Neil Nitin Mukesh, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Hue Sat  Lum  01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Hemel Hempstead School. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not missing the point
I don't know whether you will get this since you seem to change IP a lot but don't seem to have an account (which isn't required but you can't complain to others if they can't communicate with you). You said I was missing the point, but actually it is you that is missing the point. Whether or not Bbb23 should have closed the thread is largely irrelevent, no one is going to be de-admined based on one mistake (and admins aren't blocked for historic mistakes and in fact are rarely blocked for any administrative action since there's usually little point, if the admin is 'rogue' they can just unblock themselves). As ANI clearly says it is solely for actions needing administrative intervention. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Bbb23's actions, nothing was ever going to happen. If you believe an admin is acting inappropriately in an involved fashion your first action (as with most disputes with an editor) should be their talk page. If that fails, then perhaps an RFC/U. Just because someone is an admin doesn't mean it make sense to complain about them on ANI unless you genuinely believe they require intervention, the same as taking random complaint about other non admin editors. So there was little point for me considering whether or not it was appropriate for Bbb23 to take action. More serious was for me to look in to your allegation that the outcome here was wrong. I did that and found no evidence it was. Therefore, nothing was or is going to or should happen. As I already said, if you find evidence Bbb23 is regularly acting inappropriately and you can't resolve it via discussion with them, you're free to follow up in an appropriate. But making a big fuss about one alleged mistake which didn't have a significant negative outcome rarely goes anywhere on wikipedia. Remember neither admins nor experienced users are here to rule on user conduct to award some sort of 'demerit' points for every bad action, the only thing people (should) care about is taking action to protect wikipedia by administrative action when necessary, or by discussion with other editors or working on parts of the project when it isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, I'm Mdann52. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Heroin because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.