User talk:86.187.162.96

April 2017
Hello, I'm NewEnglandYankee. I noticed that you made a change to an article, HMS Ark Royal (R07), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at HMS Ark Royal (R07), you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at HMS Ark Royal (R07). --David Biddulph (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Widr (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Hi Favonian, your current extensive range block is causing significant collateral damage. Is there really a need for this type of action? Thanks. 86.187.162.96 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In view of this edit history, yes, it is necessary, and it probably won't be the last such block. The block is anon-only, so users who wish to edit constructively should follow the instructions at WP:Request an account. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * edit conflict. Incidentally: I've just been looking at what IPs in this range have been doing (yes, I've got too much time on my hands) and it seems there's an element of trigger-happiness going on here when it comes to implementing blocks for so-called vandalism. For example, the case immediately above concerning HMS Ark Royal was not vandalism at all. The IP was ultimately proved to be correct in his edits. A block was, nevertheless, implemented on the strength of non-existent vandalism. I just saw your response. Thanks. I must disagree, though. Based on the apparent vandalism, this is not a particularly active range. At least not compared with others I've seen. 86.187.162.96 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)