173.79.19.248

@Graeme Bartlett: what precisely do you find disruptive about removing admitted AI slop with an explanatory edit summary and link to the relevant discussion? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh that’s funny my IP changed after the blackout. @BusterD: I am the same person as User talk:100.36.106.199. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking quickly, GB! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Your reverts were very rapid, normally associated with trouble makers. But I blocked you in error as the edits do appear to be justified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Luckily this is a pretty easy thing to fix, so each revert just takes a minute to check the diff. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered making an account?

I’m probably the umpteenth user to ask you this, but have you considered making an account? You seem to have a couple years’ worth of Wikipedia experience under your belt. Philroc (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification here, Philroc, that makes sense. And yes, it has been suggested to me a few times before :). 173.79.19.248 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Do not appreciate

Step your tone game up. Wikipedia is a serious endeavor. While it's fine to have a bit of fun at people you know's expense, people who don't may not or will not understand your apparent quality of humor. I'm leaving this warning to let you know rather than blocking you straight out of the blue, which I considered doing. Izno (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: Blocking over this would be ridiculous. You may notice that I did make a comment to them in a quite different tone, which they completely ignored (and took no lesson from, since they repeated the error two days later). So perhaps you could take the opportunity to explain to them what they should have done and why, since they obviously haven't understood the problem. Anyhow yes I will stop teasing this person. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Changing someone's username in edit summary

Why did you change the username of the editor you were reverting in this edit to "rootless cosmopolitan", an antisemitic trope? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I didn't change anything, that was their username at the time: see User_talk:Telavivpedestrian#Username. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(I can think of at least three or four different ways you could have figured this out yourself!) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I checked their user log, which is where I thought it would have been mentioned, but that made it look like the username was the same all along. Odd that they really did change their name in that 1-day interval between your revert and me seeing it. Sorry about that. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Crossroads: oh that's funny, I don't look at user logs and I would have thought the same, but it seems that they show actions taken by a user and not actions performed on a user. So the name-change appears in FlightTime's logs instead: Special:Log/FlightTime. Apology accepted, and my own apologies for the parenthetical snark! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Man, I could do a cheeseburger right now. But you have it instead; it's hungry work tidying up after trolls. Thanks! —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Thanks and you're welcome! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Isaac Newtons apple tree

I'm just re-phrasing this but, from what I saw you tried to redirect and remove the article. All i want to know is why you did it, yes im new but that doesn't make me less of a person. Killertrant (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Killertrant: Asking a question is a very different activity from reverting an edit and falsely accusing someone of vandalism. In the future, when you want to understand why someone has done something, you can start by reading their edit summary, you can follow that by looking for context in the article history or talk page, and if you are still in doubt you can ask them. Follow the links to learn about what you should have done instead of reverting and violating WP:NOTVAND. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I saw you had redirected the whole page without a consensus or with any backing, for me it just seemed out of the blue. Killertrant (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that’s what happens when you don’t take any of the steps I mentioned, and does not excuse your improper description of it as vandalism. Your next message here should have the following form: “You’re right, next time I see something I don’t understand, I should try to investigate the relevant context or perhaps ask a question before accusing anyone of vandalism. It was a mistake not to consider the meaning of your edit summary in the context of the recent article history.” 173.79.19.248 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

There was no discussion that's why I reverted it. Killertrant (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read this message very slowly and carefully so that I don't have to repeat it again: did you read my edit summary? Did you look at the recent history of the article? This does not require a degree in rocket surgery to figure out, it requires you to be able to look at Isaac Newton's apple tree: Revision history, understand simple sentences, and not call things as "vandalism" that are obviously not vandalism. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As per my previous message there was no discussion and the edit summary didn't match up with the talk page. Killertrant (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok you are just very, very unobservant, apparently unable to grasp that my edit summary refers to an edit exactly six edits earlier or to otherwise understand context -- that's fine, but in that case you should not self-appoint as a policeman of people who are more competent than you are. Please do not post here again. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. tony 18:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Three minutes late to the party it seems :) (but also I don't think I personally attacked anyone? I mean ok "stick to what you know" is a little bit snarky but if "a little bit snarky" were an NPA violation then WP would have closed up shop a long time ago). 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Warning

I'm not going to block you, because you were at least reverting an inappropriate close, and that provides some level of mitigation, but your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard still were edit-warring; it takes two to tango, as they say. Please don't do that. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: thank you. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List

There is a discussion that may interest you at

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Revisiting the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

---