Usuario discusión:24.53.5.114

== Ediciones vandálicas ==

Por favor, detente. Si continúas vandalizando páginas, serás bloqueado por un bibliotecario y no podrás continuar editando en Wikipedia. --cinevor0 (discusión) 22:33 27 ene 2014 (UTC)

Aunque correctamente aplicado en su momento, he tachado el aviso arriba tras recibir las explicaciones del usuario IP en mi página de discusión (ver mi contestación abajo).--Technopat (discusión) 22:34 2 jun 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Before looking into the “simple situation”/”strange intervention” you describe and which has led up to all this, I’d like to correct whatever misgivings you may have as to my motives, misgivings expressed by the lengths you’ve been prepared to go to in order to educate me in that regard. I shall leave to your own introspection why you are under the impression that I believe “that all IPs without exception are vandals by definition”, as that kind of broad statement probably says more about you than it does about me. I can assure you, if you're interested, that I’m fully aware that many IPs make “good and valid contributions”, not only because I, too, was an IP for a long time, but because over many years I have observed and collaborated with literally hundreds, if not thousands of IPs who have made bad, good or excellent contributions to Wikipedia, and don’t need you to point that one out to me. The same goes for the question you ask regarding whether I have “some sort of knee-jerk reaction of reverting for no reason all the edits that are made by IP users”.

Which brings us to the edit I reverted. It really is much simpler to understand than you seem to think, at least as regards the main aspects of the matter. It’s true that there does seem to have been some sort of IT glitch in that your edit showed up much later as vandalism, and I reverted it as such, but I gave up trying to figure out such glitches a long time ago. These things happen, and that’s all there is to it.

So, why did I revert? It’s really very simple. For whatever reason, your edit showed up, four months later, as an IP user removing a warning left on your talk page by an experienced user. The edit summary you left, “Commented out the false accusation and the threat by Usuario:Cinevoro”, basically a fait accompli, offers no explanation whatsoever. So I reverted. Simple. No need to check over your previous edits. On the other hand, if you'd bothered to explain on your talk page, on the other user’s talk page or on the article discussion page (as did another user), rather than simply reverting three times, you could have saved yourself a load of angst and not wasted other users’ valuable time.

I won’t waste any more time going over the points you raise regarding the origin of all this but, as I point out at the top of my talk page, "... y no reconocer tus propios fallos en cuanto a la wikificación, por ejemplo, solo te harán perder el tiempo". In other words, it was your own behaviour, however justified it may have been in its origin, that led to all this misunderstanding, and subsequent rigmarole. No "false accusation". No "bullying threat". A simple warning for reverting three times. Regards, --Technopat (discusión) 22:34 2 jun 2014 (UTC)