User talk:75.162.211.81

December 2105

I've blocked this IP address for 48 hours for the personal attacks and battleground behavior in this edit, as well as the pattern of other edits on Talk:eBay and User talk:Slightsmile. Keep in mind that this block doesn't just apply to editing under this IP address and that attempting to evade blocks will lead to additional action being taken. Prodego ^talk 01:05, 31 December 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'll make a renewed effort not to give personal attacks. But of course I do have some questions about this unwarranted blockage, as you might well imagine: 1. Why is it that IP-editors tend to get the raw ends of the deal: that you "admins" tend to lean towards the side of someone who's editing with an account over someone who's editing without one, especially in the area of what you label as "personal attacks" or "harassment" when given by the IP-editor but not so much when the named editor does the same thing? 2. For example--and this is... yep, maybe you guessed it... question 2: Why is it supposedly "okay" (according to you) for someone with a name... like, say... escape orbit... to dish out a personal attack, but not for me to give him one back because I'm just a lowly IP-editor? Specifically, why is it supposedly "okay" for him to give me a personal attack by putting false stuff on my keyboard by making the ludicrous claim that my reason for wanting the old style of "ebaY" logo to go next to the current one, "ebay," in the lead, is "because I wanted it in there," even though that is a total lie; but it's supposedly "not okay" for me to call that kind of slander stupid just as it really is? 3. Here's another one: Why is it supposedly "okay" for him and "smiley girl" there to falsely accuse my edits of being "vandalism" just because they differed from what these guys preferred, but then when I say their reversions are vandalism, I get in trouble for it as if it were a "personal attack" just because I'm an IP-only editor? 4. Ready for one more? Then why is it fine for any of you named editors to give one of us IP-editors a warning template, but when I, as an IPer do the same thing to a named editor like I did to partially smiley girl, I get dinged with "Oh, you can't do that 'cause that's a 'personal attack'," or "Oh, that's bad because that's 'harassment' "? 5. Oh yeah, here's one more! Remember the rule about edit-warring (just in general, meaning that it doesn't even have to be breaking 3RR) that says that " 'but I was right, so I was not edit-warring' is no defense"? Well then doesn't that apply to meeting some so-called "consensus" too (since some things aren't cases of concrete correctness but are just based more on whether they match what that so-called "consensus" wanted the thing to say)? Well then why is it that just because your named friend smiley there does some edit-warring against me to put the thing back to what your exclusive (partial) "consensus" wants it to say, AND since my editing had already been established as NOT vandalism even though it disagrees, you ignore that above-mentioned edit-warring rule and give her/him a pass anyway, but when I, an IP-only editor who's against your exclusive "consensus," do the same thing, it's "edit-warring" even though it was the same thing as what smiley's doing (remember the "being-right/matching-consensus-is-no-defense" rule)? 75.162.211.81 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

Isn't that what the first sentence does? I addressed what I would improve that I was blocked for, did I not? And why aren't my questions evidence that the block shouldn't have been given in the first place? And why won't anyone answer them? 75.162.211.81 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2015 (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.

Stylization in the lead

Whatever consensus developed at EBay does not automatically apply to other articles. Don't remove information to make a point. clpo13_(talk) 00:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus develops at separate articles independent of others, unless there's a guideline at the Manual of Style. If you want to make this consistent, I suggest starting a discussion or Request for Comment there. clpo13_(talk) 02:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, regardless of your intentions, you were reverted (either by me or Dave Dial), which means, according to WP:BRD, that you should bring the topic up on a discussion page instead of edit warring. clpo13_(talk) 02:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

--75.162.211.81 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)== January 2016 == You may be 'blocked from editing wifaskljklfsjklfjating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.