User talk:173.63.176.93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome![edit]

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:

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 (173.63.176.93) 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! Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

173.63.176.93 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This must be a mistake.

Decline reason:

Please read WP:GAB before requesting unblocking. The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Doesn't seem like it, but I don't have the information Kudpung does. In any case, he shouldn't have set it to indef. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without prejudice to the findings of another administrator reviewing this case, 'This must be a mistake' is not a detailed reason for an unblock. Please take a moment to review your contributions and this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive, and this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive investigation and the evidence presented there. I hjave temporarily freduced the duration of the block. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Census estimates[edit]

Hi. Please do not convert US census population tables to use the {{Historical populations}} template. The {{USCensusPop}} template has parameters for adding census estimates: estimate, estyear, estref. Thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. JOJ Hutton 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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.
I am NOT engaged in an edit war - the reviewer of the article in question appears to have AGREED with me on the Talk page - so in fact, it appears that you are the one engaging in the edit war. And yes, this is a shared IP address, but it's my business to edit anon. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —hike395 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Again, I have ABSOLUTELY NO intention of edit-warring. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake -- you have only reverted three times, so I withdrew the discussion. But, check out the definition of edit war: I think you definitely are engaging in an edit war. I am leaning towards the inclusion of the material --- but the way that you're doing this will harden the opinions and make it unlikely that the material will get included. Remember that Wikipedia has no deadline. Let's slow down and see if we can get consensus supported by longer-term sources. —hike395 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, I have NO intention of edit warring. But thank you for your good insight. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You reverted two different editors three times to re-instate your added content. That is indeed edit warring, although it doesn't break the 3rr technicality. An edit warring block can be imposed for less than the 3rr bright line. Vsmith (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Apart from the issue of edit warring (which you clearly were doing), there is another consideration. When there is disagreement among editors as to what is to be included in an article, we try to use consensus as a deciding factor. Sometimes there is no clear consensus, but in this case there is an unambiguous consensus, and you are in a minority of one. Please accept that, even if you believe you are right, your view has not prevailed, and move on from this issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm still entitled to my opinion, and it appears that hike395 (talk) states above that he is "leaning towards the inclusion of the material". Further, I believe that user HiLo48 appeared in principle to agree on the Yosemite talk page, if not half-heartedly. Thus technically, for you to say that my opinion was in a minority of one is not at all correct. So Wikipedia is simply going to erase this noteworthy phenomenon at Yosemite from history as if it never happened. Very unfortunate. Hopefully you will reconsider re-instating this material; but I have better things to do than worry about this, I've stated my point. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not alone[edit]

I'm the anonymous user under IP # 63.235.13.3 who tried to edit Yosemite_National_Park two days ago about "recent relevant news" about the Hatavirus risk and also had my edit undone by User:Jojhutton. Having recently joined, I don't have the authority to see if you're still being blocked, why you're being blocked, or appeal your case for you. But I wish I could help more. But fortunately, you should be free to edit as you will in less than 36 hours if Wikipedia:GAB#Edit_warring_.28.22Three-revert_rule.22.29_blocks is right and if User:Kundpong helped shorten your block duration.

It's insanely frustrating how big of a learning curve Wikipedia has for new editors. I've just spent at least 3-4 hours figuring out how to write this post to you. But I don't want to leave you as the lone voice of dissent on this likely-to-be highly prominent issue. I hope everything works out. I guess it will just have to anyways, in time. Airelor (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. It's been mentioned on the Hantavirus page. It's almost as if there is a conspiracy among a few editors not to allow it onto the Yosemite page itself, as if the mere mention would spoil the reputation of the park itself. That's ridiculous, if it's good enough to mention on the Hantavirus page, it should be mentioned on the Yosemite page as well. Shall we appeal together to an admin? If you write the appeal, I will second it. Just FYI, I was quickly unblocked when somebody realized they had made a mistake. So when I say appeal, I'm talking about the Yosemite hantavirus issue, not my temporary block. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you being personally banned from the Yosemite National Park topic area (which will need to follow this formal appeal process? Or do you mean appeal the edit reversion (which does not need to follow a formal process yet)? Airelor (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Just this edit reversion. I have no block. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Chinatown does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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.
Someone else's edit on this network. But good general advice, I try to when I can (and remember), but I'm sure I could also improve. Thanks! 173.63.176.93 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

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

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating 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 (173.63.176.93) 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!  Abhishek  Talk 06:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Paterson sources[edit]

This series of edits to the article for Paterson, New Jersey added sources for the claim that Paterson was the second-densest city in the United States as of the 2000 Census. All of these sources are from websites that mirror or scrape Wikipedia content, and Wikipedia can't be used to reference itself. Disability lawyers and moving company referral web sites are usually not likely to be the most reliable of sources. The Census Bureau web site or references in newspapers, magazines or books are needed here. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please...[edit]

don't be a dick. Of course Madison and Fifth Avenues can both be the western boundary of Rose Hill, at different times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being a senile fool and vandalizing my talk page; was "or" originally anyway before recent changes. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The western boundary is one street at one point AND another street at another. At no point is the boundary one OR the other. Learn how to write English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
bullpucky; Madison and 5th are absolutely parallel throughout the area; you're just trying to justify your own mistake now in a ridiculous way. Can you explain why you yourself kept the "or" as of your own edit at 22:05 May 6, just a few hours ago, describing it as "nbeter" (now who needs English lessons?)? 173.63.176.93 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
And in fact, the OR is correct, because Manhattan neighborhoods don't have discrete boundaries and can therefore be interpreted differently by different people.173.63.176.93 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just add the information to the fucking article, there's not need for an image to accompany it. It adds absolutely nothing, and is unencyclopedic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop stalking and retaliating against me and vandalizing the articles I edit. Don't tell me what to do, either, and stick to your own Manhattan articles. The image is simply the best representation of the metro area and there is nothing wrong with that AT ALL. You're also deleting captions and references without justification. Let the admin address your raunchy behavior in the meantime.173.63.176.93 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of New York City[edit]

Please see the message posted in the Talk section of the above article. Robocon1 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of New York City[edit]

Please see the message in the Talk section for this article: under "800 Languages"Robocon1 (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Demographics of New York City". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 12:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)