82.20.240.157

Removal of quote from judges.

You wrote upon removal: "let's not fall for the trap of implying that there might be merit to this, when all reality-based commentators agree that if the standing issue were rectified it would also fail on the merits". The actual judicial comment is significant and does not imply anything but clearly identifies jurisdiction and standing as the pivot. Viktorikona (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

I reverted you vandalized edit at Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, if you think it should not be reverted then tell me why? (also read:WP:SPS) ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

82.20.240.157 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 82.20.240.157. It's a Virgin Media broadband IP.

Decline reason:

There is no block on this IP address directly. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @331dot: Why? There are no warnings here. 82.20.240.157 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no block on this IP address. That's all I can say unless you tell the exact message that appears when you attempt to edit. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: well that's weird - the message said this was a web host rangeblock.

There has been successful edits from this IP today(not necessarily by you). 331dot (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: thanks. I don't know what was going on, maybe my VPN was active.

Zeitgeist

Sources, reviews etc refr to it as a documentary, so so do we. A crappy, puerile, tasteless, unfunny comedy is still a comedy. The word describes a genre, not a quality.Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: sources actually describe it as a crock of shit. The inability of Wikipedia editors to forego the categorization of absolutely everything, regardless how inappropriate, is an issue not observed in most sources: the term "documentary" very often does not appear at all in coverage.

February 2022

Hello, I'm TheXug. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Girl from Ipanema seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Considering all criticism is a key element to Wikipedia information based on criticism TheXug (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2022 (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.

@TheXug:, you’re kidding, right? This was absolutely nothing to do with NPOV. The content I removed is a listicle of no objective significance. In the lead. Those things are a dime a dozen.

---