User talk:87.114.59.56

December 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stainton, South Lakeland. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I Love Pets 12 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to attempt to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stainton, South Lakeland, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Daniel Case the article is full of pointless and unnecessary statistical information, it needs to be removed 87.114.59.56 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Your are now banned from editing. I Love Pets 12 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @I Love Pets 12 wow! I didn't realise that Wikipedia was policed in such a way! An attempt to remove nonsensical information about the village I live in has resulted in a ban! There was me thinking that Wikipedia was a collaboration when in reality it's the private property of the editing police! 87.114.59.56 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And removal of that much reliably sourced information should only be done with consensus from the talk page (your one edit there does not come anywhere near constituting that; other users have to be involved, or it would have to go unanswered for a while, like at least several days). I agree with you inasmuch as some of the uncited material you removed was trying to draw improper syntheses from that material, and that you could have removed without argument. But a lot of our articles about populated places include this sort of material from national censuses where it has been collected and published. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I appreciate your reasoned reply and thank you for explaining things. It's a pity that others simply impose bans like they own the site! 87.114.59.56 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is our job (those of us who have the user rights to do this) to do that when people ignore warnings they're given ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I didn't ignore warnings, I didn't know I had been warned!
 * Once I did know, I stopped deleting.
 * I understand that there is a need for people such as yourself to monitor what is happening (I genuinely thought it was okay to just remove stuff), my complaint is that "I love pets" is acting in a way that suggests they own Wikipedia and have a right to simply ban people they disagree with. I note with interest they themselves have been banned, this suggests their behaviour is below what should be expected.
 * I have learned and will refrain from editing without due consensus. 87.114.59.56 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Stainton, South Lakeland. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism. 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:. Alexf(talk) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm I Love Pets 12. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:87.114.59.56 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I Love Pets 12 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)