User talk:216.231.141.9

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 23:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jake Wartenberg^talk 03:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

July 2009

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. A contribution you made to Individualism appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.  Skomorokh  09:58, 7 July 2009 (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.

September 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Montessori method, you will be blocked from editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2009 (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.

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Rational egoism, you will be blocked from editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours 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. Please use article talk pages to discuss article content. Skier Dude (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've been accused of vandalism but this is absurd. The articles in question, Montessori method and rational egoism, have unnecessary information concerning Ayn Rand on the presumption that she's relevant. She is irrelevant precisely because she is dismissed by academia and so is not an actual philosopher but simply inclusion by merit of popularity. For this reasoning of my revisions I'm hardly a vandal. That I've been revising articles once every few weeks destroys any idea that I'm a vandal.216.231.141.9 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Next time, heed warnings rather than edit warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:49, 19 September 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Someone reverting my edits should hardly count as a warning against me. It's simply that, reverting my edits. By that logic I'm giving "warnings" to other people editing Wiki whenever I undo their edits. Considering I offered valid reasons behind my edits, you can't call it vandalism nor can you actually justify calling these warnings. Secondly considering this whole thing was spaced out over a span of weeks, it's not edit warring either. Finally, the fact remains that editing Wiki in good faith is not vandalism and precisely because of that, this block is unjustified.216.231.141.9 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your recent edits appear to be focused on removing all mention of Objectivism from Wikipedia. I'm no fan of Objectivism, but it does appear to verifiably exist- I think you might be letting your own point of view influence the way you edit. Next time, since you know that the mention of objectivism makes you mad, discuss your desired changes on the talk page of the article and make sure that other users agree with you that the way you see things is indeed the best version of the article. Or try making edits that aren't related to objectivism for a while, if that works better for you. Just trying to entirely erase them from Wikipedia really is kind of disruptive, though. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hardly. But I don't want it where it isn't relevant. The fact remains that Objectivism is not philosophy and until it receives that designation by academia, it is irrelevant in pages of serious interest. Likewise scientology is not recognized as religion in the religion articles. Even in the Montessori page, the mention of Objectivism is so small to render it irrelevant. It's more like a simple "Yea!" by Ayn Rand and someone unknown to Ayn Rand might be reading the section and ask themselves, "Who is Ayn Rand and why should I care?" Her claiming that she is a philosopher against the lack of academic support does not support her case. On the other hand the Kilpatrick section is immediately justifiable because he is a Ph.D in education. For the rational egoism page the same criticisms against Objectivism's mention in the article apply: It's small, it's simple support by Ayn Rand, etc. The criticism of rational egoism mentioned earlier that makes egoism look extremely untenable makes her support look even laughable, especially the way the Objectivism section is mentioned after these criticisms. All the same these things are besides the point though since those edits were made in good faith and this block is unjust.216.231.141.9 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per FisherQueen. Please read up on consensus and neutral point of view during the remainder of your block. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2009 (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.

Great! If you are definitely right, then it should be easy to get consensus on the talk pages before making similar edits in the future, and then there'll be no problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is absurd. Considering Objectivism is widely denigrated my academia and is poorly implemented in those articles, that dashes your complaint of me violating any neutral point of view. Neutral point of view even says not to take minority views into account. Objectivism is a minority view. As for the consensus issue, on the rational egoism page, it has been discussed that Ayn Rand is irrelevant to rational egoism. Consensus was actually assumed by the talk page and edit history until someone else revised the page recently saying, "whatever you guys on the talk page like it or not, Rational Self-Interest is a very prominent concept in Objectivism, and deserves being mentioned in this article - Deleting it is quite unacademic IMO" Likewise on Montessori method the talk page editors have said that Ayn Rand is so minor as to be irrelevant. That I've been offering reasons for my justification dismisses the idea that I'm a vandal since this was done in good faith, not to mention the disrespect implied in actually warning someone over whatever edits you make over someone else, but that latest comment only proves this block is unjust.216.231.141.9 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. I am locking this talk page for the duration of this block. During that time, please read the appropriate policies and guidelines, especially on civility and decorum as well as edit warring and dispute resolution. MuZemike 02:16, 21 September 2009 (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.

Your argument makes sense with regard to the Montessori Method page, and is supported by that talk page; as such, your removal has been left unchanged there. However, nowhere on the talk page for Rational Egoism does anyone support complete removal of the mention of Ayn Rand. What discussion there is about reducing her mention is related to an earlier version of the page in which discussion of Rand's use of the term was more prominent than the standard academic definition.

Like it or not, Rand, however "derided by academia" she may be (you've made this assertion numerous times but haven't presented a source), is popular (or at least well known), and is one of the more likely reasons for readers to be looking at this article in the first place; as such, it would be a disservice to those readers for this article not to discuss her use of the term and how it differs from the academic usage.

Bottom line is: when your change is reverted, you need to build consensus. Reinstating your edits without doing so is considered edit warring - even if you do it from a different IP address. John Darrow (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rational egoism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Turgan ^Talk 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for returning from a block to make exactly the same kind of disruptive edits. 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I'm trying to have a discussion on the rational egoism article to get this whole mess out of the way. If I'm blocked I can't very well do that now can I?216.231.141.9 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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'm trying to have a discussion on the rational egoism article to get this whole mess out of the way. If I'm blocked I can't very well do that now can I?[[Special:Contributions/216.231.141.9|216.231.141.9]] ([[User talk:216.231.141.9#top|talk]]) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |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'm trying to have a discussion on the rational egoism article to get this whole mess out of the way. If I'm blocked I can't very well do that now can I?[[Special:Contributions/216.231.141.9|216.231.141.9]] ([[User talk:216.231.141.9#top|talk]]) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |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'm trying to have a discussion on the rational egoism article to get this whole mess out of the way. If I'm blocked I can't very well do that now can I?[[Special:Contributions/216.231.141.9|216.231.141.9]] ([[User talk:216.231.141.9#top|talk]]) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

No, I guess you can't. Perhaps you should have listened to me and waited until you had consensus to edit-war over that change. Since you failed to learn from your earlier block, and are disrupting the encyclopedia in exactly the same way, another block is necessary. Next time, don't make the change until the other users actually agree with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

{unblock|Then you admit it's a matter of consensus over credentials. The other editors like John Darrow are actually clueless over Objectivism's hate by academia despite documentation of said hate on the Objectivism page and seem to be ignorant about Objectivism's history entirely. Their only argument to keep Objectivism mentioned is that Objectivism is popular and it wasn't until recently I learned how ignorant they were and I was trying to correct their ignorance until this block. What would be the point in debating with such people who actually maintained that Objectivism should stay based on popularity? They have no right in editing things they're ignorant about and for you to actually say that I can't have a discussion to resolve the issue which would improve the site, you're digging your own hole when it comes to this site's efficacy. That you actually criticize me for edit-warring on no evidence (no, it's impossible that other people share the same views on Objectivism as I do) shows a clear lack of impartiality. This isn't mentioning that you didn't lift the block when I showed you I had consensus on the Montessori page.216.231.141.9 (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)}}

You don't need two open unblock requests; one is enough. You aren't blocked for anything but your disruptive editing. As to the rest, I would only say what I have said before, and the way I said it doesn't seem to be clear enough, so I'll let someone else review your edits and this block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing admin: Take a look at the history of the relevant article, as this user has been edit-warring from multiple ips on this one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

And what evidence do you have for that? None. Making such a random inference is hardly reliable.

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=And what evidence do you have for that? None. Making such a random inference is hardly reliable. |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=And what evidence do you have for that? None. Making such a random inference is hardly reliable. |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=And what evidence do you have for that? None. Making such a random inference is hardly reliable. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}