Jump to content

User talk:216.93.231.149

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.93.231.149 (talk) at 05:50, 31 October 2008 (I wasn't editing distruptively, siberian tigers do sometimes prey on brown bears). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Duncan Hunter, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Duncan Hunter was changed by 216.93.231.149 (u) (t) deleting 35883 characters on 2008-06-06T00:14:24+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.Benon (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Phil Hendrie has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Vishnava talk 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dennis Kucinich, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Dennis Kucinich was changed by 216.93.231.149 (u) (t) deleting 63152 characters on 2008-07-09T22:39:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dennis Kucinich, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Dennis Kucinich was changed by 216.93.231.149 (u) (t) deleting 63516 characters on 2008-07-14T05:51:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]



You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Antandrus (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking process did not go properly. I get 4 level 1 warnings and a blocking. If anyone is going to block me, then I demand that it be done properly. Another reason, this is my first block. You can't block me for 1 week for the first offense. 1 or 2 days is more reasonable. A 1 week blocking on a first offense should be for something like a personal attack.

Decline reason:

This is the 3rd block for this account. And the warning hierarchy is a guide, not an entitlement. — Kevin (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I honestly didn't know that this was the third block. I really really thought that this was the 1st blocking until I noticed my request get rejected. Also, I said before, I was block unfairly. Wikipedia, face it, the blocking procedure was not done properly. I may have gotten 4 warnings, but all of them were level 1. Stop giving "special treatment" to other users.

Decline reason:

As mentioned above, warnings are not an entitlement, not a right. Administrators reserve the right to block on sight in cases of egregious vandalism, which this was. Block is endorsed. --Kinu t/c 03:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

July 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Dennis Kucinich. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Patrick (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Vandalism to George W. Bush

But I really want to know. I heard that you can get arrested if you vandalize that page. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.231.149 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if someone threatened his life, it is possible that there would be enough reason for arrest. Those things are best left to commedians because they know the limits of what's legal and have the big TV networks to defend them if they come too close to the line. Chergles (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Vandalism will not get you arrested, but it may get you blocked from editing. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Kentucky

I would like to request that you please stop injecting nonfactual bias into the Kentucky article's lead paragraph. Kentucky is not a Southeastern state. The current content reflects the work and research of many editors and will not be allowed to be changed without discussion. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Phil Hendrie. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Phil Hendrie. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

I am asking for full protection. There is edit warning. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Eunectes murinus

It is among the largest snakes in the world because, although it may be the heaviest species, it is probably not the longest. The article is clear enough on that without making any absolute claims. Besides, we do not yet have any reliable references. If you want to settle this matter, do some research -- in the library, not on the web -- and find some reliable information on this subject. Properly researched and referenced information is the kind that lasts the longest around here. --Jwinius (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on absolutes and then edit-warring to keep them is inappropriate, as is reporting Jwinius for 3RR, which he did not, in fact, violate. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting Jwinius for 3RR was justified. He was violating the 3 revert rule, I wasn't. Also, why am I being accused of ignoring discussions? There weren't any and I would be willing to have one. A green anaconda really is the largest snake in the world (I'm not saying longest, I am say largest as in heaviest). No other snake in the world can reach 550 lbs so what I was doing was justified. The thing that was not justified was blocking me. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Eunectes murinus. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Excuse me, I am not the one picking a fight here. You can't just block a user who was not edit warring. In fact, I only made 2 reverts to Eunectes murinus in the past day (in fact, past 10 days). It was Jwinius that violated the three-revert-rule. I am not trying to argue with Jwinius, even some sources that link to the article say that a green anaconda is the largest snake in the world. Even if I am not citing sources, well you can't block me for that, but you can give me a warning. If anyone wants a discussion on the talk page on this issue, then that is a discussion that I am willing to have.

Decline reason:

First, here are three reverts to the article you made within 24 hours of the past 72 or so: [1], [2], [3]. In fact, it almost looks like it was timed to stay just inside the limit. But whatever ... You have, over a period of time, continued to just revert and revert despite attempts by other editors to discuss that with you here. That's edit warring and/or tendentious editing, which either way you slice it adds up to disruptive — Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, the 1st link you have there is not a revert. It is inserting information into Wikipedia that I had put in before. Don't call me an edit warrer. In fact, if you can read, go back and check the history of Eunectes murinus. That was the 1st edit I made in almost 10 days. Even then, there was no edit warring. Don't say that I am ignoring any discussions. Guess what, there isn't any on the talkpage for that article. There is a message on my talkpage, but din't notice it until after I reported Jwinius for edit warring.

Decline reason:

Insulting unblock requests are not considered; see WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  07:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

What? I am not insulting anyone here. I am making a point that I was not edit warring.

Decline reason:

Asking an admin if they can read seems insulting enough to me. — Kevin (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Well, I'm sorry if anyone is offended, but it really seams like someone just assumed that I was edit warring without checking history of Eunectes murinus.

Decline reason:

Both you and Jwinius (talk · contribs) appeared to be longer-term edit warring, which is still edit warring. — slakr\ talk / 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, I am not an edit warrer. I even told him to stop.

Decline reason:

Wait out the block, then come back and edit constructively. — MBisanz talk 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I even continuing this. You people are not being fair by punishing the editor that did not pick an edit war with another user.

Decline reason:

You are wise to ask yourself, "why am I continuing this?' In fact, you will not get an unlimited number of unblock requests; it would be wise to wait out the block, because admins will often edit-protect the talk page of people who make excessive numbers of unblock requests. A point comes where your request has been reviewed by enough independent admins for you to accept their decision, and that time is now. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is ridiculous. Don't tell me how many requests for unblocking I can make. Sure, I shouldn't be making this much, but I am because no administrator is willing to be fair to me. We went over what happened and yet you people think you can block me just because you feel like it. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When other users disagree with us, instead of battling it out by reverting each other, we discuss the problem on the article talk page until we come to a reasonable agreement together. I cannot find any evidence in your contributions that you have ever made a post to Talk:Eunectes murinus, although you have restored the same edit to it quite a few times. It would be so much easier for you if you would discuss, rather than reverting. Then you won't get blocked any more, and you'll be able to reach consensus with other users, and that'll make the articles better, too. You made a report to the 3RR board, so you understand the letter of the law, but you don't appear to understand the rule's spirit- don't revert; discuss. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This whole situation is like getting arrest after you tell on someone who robbed your house because you wouldn't give them $5. If you don't wanna give someone $5, then you don't have to and that person has no right to rob your house. Put this in your mind, you would not like it if you got arrested when you aren't the one who broke the law. This is the same as being blocked for edit warring when you didn't do anything.
Second, if I am really arguing this case like I am, then I am obviously trying to tell you something. Just think about this some more and you will realize that this block is unfair.
Third, it was not me who started the conflict. It is not for me to post on the talkpage why I disagree with the other user's edit. If Jwinius was less selfish and took the discussion to the talk page, then we could have worked this out. He had no right to just keep reverting a good faith edit that I made. If he disagrees with the statement I am making, discuss it, not revert it. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not think there is anything wrong with repeatedly reverting someone else, and if you have no intention to discuss your desired edits when your block expires, chances are good that you will continue edit-warring in the future. Now that six independent administrators have reviewed your unblock request, six independent administrators have your talk page watchlisted. That means that the next time you get involved in an edit-war, you will get blocked very quickly. Most of us will use a system of increasingly lengthy blocks, so the next block will probably be several days, or even a week. If you continue consistently making the choice not to discuss edits with others, and to repeatedly revert, you will eventually be blocked for a very long period of time, or indefinitely. But, even though I've seen many users choose that path, you don't have to be one of them. You could, for example, choose to seek consensus for your desired edit on the talk page when this block expires. You might even get the edit you want, or, through the discussion, you might come to see it the other way. Most of us have lots and lots of pages on our watchlists, and won't be monitoring your contributions all that closely unless we notice a problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice, when I made 2 (only 2) reverts, I even told Jwinius to stop it and that he does not own articles. He responded by being a snotmouth and saying "you don't either". I am not trying to own articles, I am trying to make a contribution. Oh you bet I am pissed off right now. I will have a discussion about this when you unblock me. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like anyone is going to unblock you, but you'll be welcome to have a discussion with him when your short block expires. You should know, though, that your comments and his were pretty much equally rude, and that calling other users names such as 'snotmouth' is rarely useful in a polite conversation about what the best version of an article will be. You'll be better off if you try to assume that he, too, wants to create the best possible encyclopedia, and discuss the article with him from within that assumption. Very few people react to insults with a willingness to compromise and collaborate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, my comments were not rude. Telling him to stop reverting is not rude. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see nowthat he did try to discuss the problem here, but you didn't make much effort to come to an agreement with him; you simply said that he was wrong, when he clearly had a reasonable point. It would have been so easy for the two of you to decide together to change the wording to 'the heaviest snake in the world,' and the problem would already be solved. This is a small, easily resolved conflict, and the other user was willing to work with you to resolve it. Conflicts like this happen every day on Wikipedia; the ability to cope with them appropriately is essential. If you can't handle minor, easily solved conflict with a user who's willing to work with you, how will you be able to manage the more difficult disagreements? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously did not notice that until after I reported him for edit warring. Just one more thing, you don't need to link it if it is on my own talkpage. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I am not expressing a point of view. I do not know where you people picked this up from. First of all, inserting a fact is not a point of view. A POV would be something like "Green anacondas are cool animals and they kick ass", not "are the largest snakes in the world". 216.93.231.149 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About avoiding blocks

I'm sorry that I encouraged you to think that you would be able to edit after this short block expires, but you forgot to mention that you have already been blocked from editing Wikipedia when you were using the name User:Footballfan190. As a blocked user, we expect you to refrain from editing. If you come to a point when you are willing to edit in a way that is appropriate, you can request an unblock using your username, but you are not allowed to log out and edit through an ip when you are blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not avoiding a block. I don't even want to use the other account anymore (there isn't even a point to it.). I have been editing faithfully lately and you come in abusing your blocking power.

Decline reason:

Block evasion is block evasion. — MBisanz talk 01:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

and abusing blocking power is abusing blocking power.

Decline reason:

That's an extremely ineffective way of asking to be unblocked. I've protected your talk page to prevent further abuse of the unblock template. — Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Texas. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. EagleAg04 (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.93.231.149&oldid=248767567"