User talk:190.161.134.66

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.161.134.66) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Jeana Yeager. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

Please refrain from using abusive language in the edit summaries such as in this edit [1] and in particular this edit [2]. In general, the language in your edit summaries has condescending and abusive tones. Referring to other people's edits as "bizarre" and "ridiculous", not to mention calling editors themselves "f*****g idiots" will accomplish nothing positive here on Wikipedia. Please be civil in your future comments. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a constructive edit for no good reason is guaranteed to piss the editor off. Did you feel the need to tell User:EncMstr not to do that, or ask him why he reverted my changes? No, you did not. So you think it's fine to gratuitously piss people off. So asking me not to be rude to people is pure hypocrisy. Should User:EncMstr apologise for his unnecessary and rude reverts of my edits, then I'll be glad to refrain from being rude in my edit summaries. Reckon that's likely to happen? I'm not going to hold my breath. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was meant as a fair warning, or more like just simple advice, not a threat or anything like that. It's just that I have seen it happen before. Editors who show a consitent pattern of uncivil and foul language eventually wind up getting blocked, regardless of the circumstances that precipitate the abusive remarks. I made my point and you can take it for what its worth. And no, I was not planning on following behind your edits and asking everyone why they pissed you off, if thats what you mean.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I've seen happen before is that anonymous edits are treated like shit, regardless of what they are actually doing, and that anyone with a username is automatically assumed to be OK. You saw that I made edits that were reverted by someone with a username. Presumably you didn't bother to look into the merits of the edits, you just assumed that the username was right to revert them. And so you attacked me for being angry, not the username for reverting sensible edits. I think you should be able to see that it's unreasonable to expect good faith from me in return for that.

As I recall the edits in question went something like this: You removed the word "aviatix" from the link piped to aviator. User:EncMstr reverted your edit with no explanation. You then reverted User:EncMastr's edit back to your own while calling the editor a "fuc**g idiot". There was nothing wrong with your edits themselves. In fact, I would have made the same edits myself. Why would you assume I thought otherwise? If I thought there was anything wrong with your edits, I would have reverted your edits myself, but I did not. My problem was indeed only with the language used in the edit summary. If the roles were reversed, I would be commenting on User:EncMstr's talk page about name calling and you (the anon) would have never heard a peep from me about reverting a legit edit without an explanation. The problem was solved with the edits. (For the record, I do not condone reverting a sensible edit without an explanation) It was the language used that was the more serious offense in my opinion although it appears we disagree on that. I do however agree with you that anons are treated differently than established usernames, and while you owe me no explanation, your comment begs the question: If you feel this way, why would you not go ahead and create an account for yourself?--Racerx11 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you think being rude in an edit summary is something you need to leave messages about, but reverting productive work without explanation is something you can happily ignore? Seems to me that's a very warped perspective and implicitly condones what you claim not to condone. If you believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and if you want it to get better, you should rethink your priorities. Sure, criticise my rude edit summaries if you like, but to simply ignore destructive edits like User:EncMstr's is not helpful to anyone.

If Wikipedia is going to declare itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then anonymous editors should not be discriminated against. In practice, they are, by you and many, many others. The solution to that is not for me or anyone else to create accounts but for those who actively discriminate to stop doing so. At least you've taken the time to have a civil discussion. That courtesy is frequently not given. From another IP address a couple of months ago I wrote an entire article of, I think, very high quality, lengthy, well referenced, comprehensive, etc, etc, and then got blocked after someone reverted something I did with no explanation, and I reverted back. No-one said a word about the article I wrote - all I got in return was a bunch of snotty templates and a block, for trying to reinstate good work. Things like that make me pretty contemptuous of the culture here, and I am very unlikely to start assuming good faith when bad faith is constantly assumed of me, simply because I don't have a username. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Reservoir Dogs. 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. This is now the 2nd time you have been warned, so knock it off. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:49, 2 October 2011 (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.

You seem to be vandalising the article. Why are you moving the reference to a stupid place?

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Falsely accusing an editor of vandalism is a personal attack. I suggest you stop. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:24, 2 October 2011 (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.

You've got problems. You are vandalising the article by removing improvements. Grow up and get over whatever it is you need to get over.

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your repeated incivility, particularly in your edit summaries. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you must be civil even when you disagree with other editors. You can paste the text {{unblock}} with an explanation if you would like to try to convince an administrator to unblock you before the 24 hours has elapsed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what action did you take against the idiot who keeps reverting productive edits? Absolutely fuck all by the looks of it. What is worse for wikipedia, me calling you a dopy cunt, or edits which reduce the quality of an article? Is this a kindergarten or an encyclopaedia?

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week for Disruptive Editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:34, 4 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

What disruptive editing? 190.161.134.66 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2011 (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.

And why has no-one even so much as told User:RepublicanJacobite not to break the 3RR? Why exactly is he being allowed to break it with impunity?

I think I shall get myself a new IP address rather soon.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was making only productive edits, certainly not against consensus. The person who was pointlessly reverting my work and clearly, obviously, undeniably broke the 3RR was not blocked. There is a rather huge disparity in outcomes that needs to be explained here. If he did not need to be blocked, nor did I. If I needed to be blocked for a week, so did he. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Also, your use of foul language and statement above that you essentially intend to evade this block do not help your cause in the least. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I did not write the previous unblock request nor did I make any of the edits mentioned. The IP address must be shared, but I don't know why. I think you should make the block permanent to ensure individual accountability.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I did not write the previous unblock request nor did I make any of the edits mentioned.  The IP address must be shared, but I don't know why.  I think you should make the block permanent to ensure individual accountability. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not write the previous unblock request nor did I make any of the edits mentioned.  The IP address must be shared, but I don't know why.  I think you should make the block permanent to ensure individual accountability. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not write the previous unblock request nor did I make any of the edits mentioned.  The IP address must be shared, but I don't know why.  I think you should make the block permanent to ensure individual accountability. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.