User talk:203.211.104.234

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here So you have no information on the page I was editing and now your going to remove factual sources that I listed, as you've stated on the page talk list and you've written some jibbirish about a "rampage" on the site yesterday?

Where do you make up these lies?

The information posted on page by me is factual data taken from real sources, they are listed.

You then decided its a conflict of interest because I volunteer for the team? the person attempting to edit the edits I made because they said "you have too much data", also has a page connected to the league, so how are they any different to me?

They aren't.

They also state "i'm not looking to get into an edit war" - cool so back up and remove your queries.

People use wikipedia to find all sorts of information. The team I volunteer for doesn't have a fancy website, it has fans all over the world who want to see stats.

Any other sporting team has all their stats and players and acheivements listed do the not?

This person is 100% butt hurt because I made factual edits.

reinstate my account, I have done nothing wrong. All this jibbbirsh talk of "rampage" and threats, what a bunch of lies. You've comment yourself saying your going to remove the edits? on what ground other than erasing factual data.

You also seems to asend to some power to block Ips and people? again on what grounds. There is no issue with the stats and data I have provided, its not a hate speech, its not racial, its simple stats for a part time basketball team in my town.

hectic yarns from a bunch of bots whom have nothing better to do than take away editing tools for genunie people like me who live in the area and support the team.

the user listed as DaHuzyBru lives in a difffernt country and has a proffesional sports blog, and your telling me I have a conflict of interest. just wow.

Decline reason:

This IP is blocked for making legal threats, but you don't discuss that in this request. See WP:NLT. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both. To be unblocked, you will need to withdraw any and all legal threats. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

why am I being blocked by a bunch of people that have no idea on any of these topics? 203.211.104.234 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for legal threats. In your next unblock request, you should address this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2023 (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.

Prior declined requests may not be removed until the block is removed, per WP:BLANKING. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:No legal threats - you are accused of making a legal threat. In your next unblock request, you should either deny this, or admit it, and retract the legal threat. PhilKnight (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did retract them, then you readded them, but thats cool you change the rules to suit yourself. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you just work on your own time there bud?

You've asked for the remarks to be retracted, I did so, then you re added them, so now what? like I said, your making up the rules as you go.

retract them - I did, you replaced what I retracted...how does that solve the issue? it doesn't, because you just want a user blocked. admit it. and you'll just ignore me so I stayed blocked. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Retract" the threats does not mean remove them, it means make a new statement to the effect of "I withdraw any and all legal threats I made". 331dot (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where do I make this statement then, again, if you actually explained yourseleves instead of just thinking someone knows this made up process it would have been over already wouldn't actualdiksmokers.

So "I retract any statments that I have made that people seem to feel are a threat to them, which I have never actually made, but for the sake ive being able to edit a page on wiki, go for your life and retract the statment".

whatever floats your boat - the claim about a threat is false to start with, but as you asked, I offer to retract such statment. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You told someone you would go to the police, that is a legal threat. We cannot stop you from going to the police, but then you may not edit Wikipedia until the conclusion of the legal case that opens up. You must unequivocally withdraw the threat, your above statement is insufficient. You'll also need to adopt a more civil attitude. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a more civil attitude? so thats a made up rule you've decided yourself again is it?

I retract the statment made about "going to the police", on whatever grounds it suits the bot user / editor at the time that makes up the rules as they go along, no doubt though, the next person to read this will make up another rule, about tone, or something that has nothing to do with the issue in the first place".

I'd love to know when the actual issue of some random person simply saying the team page I edited according to them "your team has done nothing in 4 years so why are you doing so many edits". is actually looked into.

rather than, you guys dragging this out. I was asked to retract - I've stated that 3 times. I went and also retracted the comment from the internet, thats called retracting and then another user decided to put it back on and cited that I haven't done what he or she said...so you just make up the rules.

even if I state here for a 5th time "I retract my comment about the police" all you have to do is delete this message.

unblock my account - I'm simply trying to keep a small sports team page relevant so people can read about us. how hard. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I Have read them, I went and removed these so called threats you make up, and now you've gone and readded them, so even when I do follow your instructions I still can't get unblocked your basically changing the rules as you go, I retracted whatever it is that has apparently upset you. Unblock me as the your suggestion states 203.211.104.234 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your combativeness and inability to assume good faith speak for themselves as to why you will not be unblocked anytime soon. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

"I withdraw any and all legal threats I made" - 6th time I have said this, unblock me 203.211.104.234 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are clearly incompatible with Wikipedia. Time to find another place to spend time. Yamla (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2023 (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.

Last warning, you can't remove prior requests until the block is removed. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have now addressed the legal threat aspect unequivocally(which you hadn't done previously). Now you need to address the issues Daniel Case brought up. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys for real? neither of those links send me to anything, so whats the new issue I now need to address? talk about abuse of power trip more than anything.

seriously just make up another set of rules as you go along. I knew this would happen. meanwhile, you take down all my factual edits that have sources and some guy who is makes a comment about the team i edited saying "in 4 years they've achieved nothing, why do you need so much detail" is allowed to make changes?

what is really going on here seriously? 203.211.104.234 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

explain what your even talking about, if I'm blocked how was able to remove anything?

apart from this page I can't even write anywhere. Your now just making stuff up. where is the orginal person that blocked me gone? back into hiding?

your just making up stuff to stall me from posting again, just own your mistake.

saying I hadn't retracted any statement - said 6 times and removed the statement, which is retracting in a nutshell, but then another editor goes and readds it, for what actual reason?

butt hutt yarns is all im dealing with now. can't get a real job, so asserting some basement bowy power over the internet. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to participate on Wikipedia, you need to follow its guidelines and policies, not the least of which is WP:No personal attacks. Although you have retracted the legal threat, your comment above is grounds to reblock you. And if you were really here to improve the Franklin Bulls article, you'd have noticed who gave it some overdue cleanup over the last day or two. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the personal attack? so thats just something you have made up again isn't it?

as in terms of "clean up" is that your opinion or factual source?

again my personal views being carried out to block me from using a website.

I'm unable to see any updates on it, because you blocked me from it.

hecitc yarns where you've decided to block me based on personal grounds which have nothing to do with anything.

A personal attack? state were the attack is? 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so your idea of a "clean up" is to remove all the states sourced from NZ basketball the governing body of the league and summerize everything to dumb it down so americans can follow it?

its basically all you have done. You know some of that vollunteer for leagues around the world keep stats and some people like to read stats, jersey numbers, stat leaders, player movements. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your also missing informing readers where you have stated "departures after the 2023 season" these players haven't departed the team, in the teams offseason they have gone to play in other leagues and will return in 2024.

What is your factual source they have departed the team then? how can you edit something that you have no proof or source of?

so your happy to remove my factual details and then replace it with something you made up to apparently "clean it up" you've competely changed the additions and your misleading readers.

But I'm blocked so I can't report it. thats not ok. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it also states that when I try to reply to someone I'm still blocked because of "legal threats" I've retracted them and it was noted that was ok'd, so thats also not happened. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I should really wait to reply until after my coffee, but here goes.

Where is the personal attack? Since you asked, here is the big offender: butt hutt yarns is all im dealing with now. can't get a real job, so asserting some basement bowy power over the internet.

I'm unable to see any updates on it, because you blocked me from it. You're blocked from editing, not from viewing. You can still view page history.

its basically all you have done. You know some of that vollunteer for leagues around the world keep stats and some people like to read stats, jersey numbers, stat leaders, player movements. Those volunteers usually set up websites for the teams and keep the stats there. That level of statistical detail is beyond the scope of Wikipedia articles; there is no exception for this particular team.

Your also missing informing readers where you have stated "departures after the 2023 season" these players haven't departed the team, in the teams offseason they have gone to play in other leagues and will return in 2024. I will concede an error there. I didn't realize that NZNBL was in an MLS situation and played a schedule counter to other leagues, and that there was enough non-overlap that a player could go overseas for the off-season. I'll re-check the sources on those to confirm they're just playing overseas for the summer.

so your happy to remove my factual details… To the extent that they exceed the standard for sport articles, yes. Wikipedia is not a team almanac. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

exactly what I said would happen - so i retract what you deemed a legal threat, then you go and make up another rule saying i have no good faith?

this isn't church, there is no faith. You've conceded your factually wrong, but then attempted to correct yourself saying its a mistake, just don't edit factal references then. So now the information portrayed in the site is misleading, let I'm blocked because I'm according to you "combative".

nothing more than a yarn.

Your now also saying the stats section exceeds that for the site - again point me in the actual direction where there is a limit? nothing something you just made up in code today or yesterday to suit your own made up answer.

I don't need to view the page history - you've removed my edits that are factual and replaced them with made up false material. yet I'm blocked, you;ve deleted my research and your somehow allowed to control that?

You'll recheck the sources- how noble of you. If you actually just left it how it was in the first place, we wouldn't be here. Why would I waste my own person time putting up stuff that isn't real?

I don't live in america, I don't need to lie to get likes, or follows or recognision. Some people actually use wikipedia to find information.

Volunteers do not setup website, that costs money, of which they then wouldn't be a vollunteer, they'd be a donor or a sponsor or an employee.

Again clearly showing your understanding of this topic and team are less than 0.

if the person that challenged the article is so upset about what I wrote - why are they not paying for a website then? 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back to Daniel Case's last decline, here's his message repeated:

Your combativeness and inability to assume good faith speak for themselves as to why you will not be unblocked anytime soon.

Your messages above demonstrate no change: you continue to take a "my way or the highway" approach to the content of the article, you view any editor who disagrees with you—even when they cite Wikipedia guidelines and policy—as hostile, and you view attempts to improve the article as destructive, To be blunt, your messages here just seem to be you packing a sad.

Now let me be clear about two things. First, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. You have got to work with other editors in a constructive manner if you're going to have a positive experience here. Second, I'm not under any obligation to reply to you, but I'm looking at the potential upside. I see potential for you to be a valuable contributor from an area of geographic isolation, but only if your contributions are a net positive. The attacks and the refusal to acknowledge, much less follow, policies and guidelines, cast serious doubts on that.

(Note to admins reviewing case. Legal threats are retracted, but battleground mentality and non-AGF approach create a situation where I think leaving the block in place prevents further disruption. I'll be glad to change the block to reflect that in the log if you think it's warranted, but I'd rather limit the number of entries and autoblocks. Any admin who feels that the user presents a bona fide case for agreeing to AGF, follow MOS/page guidelines, and edit collaboratively is free to unblock without consulting me. Any admin who feels unblock with 1RR or other similar restriction, across the board or to NZNBL topics, is appropriate may also do so without consulting with me. Happy Thanksgiving where applicable.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

more tech jargon talk to limit a normal person from having fredom to speak.

So your more than happy to make up ideas based on how it suits you and then talk about a hoilday that has nothing to do with anything?

just read the actual crap your writting. You write whatever you like and when I respond you nit pick something and because you have the programing power to do so, you block a user?

meanwhile you've edited an entry and the edit you have placed on my entry isn't factually correct and you happy for it to stand.

And whats the bet even if I get unblocked, which of course I wont, because you'll make up another rule, your probably give me a warning and block me again for editing your misleading entry on the page.

makes no sense your able to do what your doing and you answer to basically no one. which proves my point of you attempting to supress me into agreeing to everything you say is apparently correct in your own internet world.

end of the day, some dropkick living in a differnt country (clearly america) is supressing their view on somoene in a different country (me) on how they are suppose to act, reply, do, talk, write. because you don't like being told what you are.

making up words like "battleground" words that are being used to describe made up situations, where in fact in the first place, if you allowed to respond to the person whom decided that my edits are "not warranted because on the contested edit according to him, in the 4 years of the teams existance, having not won anything, there is to much information".

So a guy that has a profesional blog on sports is deemed, allowed to counter what I wrote, which by the way was factually source. you delete it and it replace with a summerization, which is false, misleading and has no factual source or reference.

You said at the end of the season x player and y player (examples) have left said team, where is in actual fact they have not.

you've added false information and apparently thats allowed to stand because your a programmer or editor with creditiionals?

that is an abuse of power. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also being told by some rando your "incompatablie and should go somewhere else", do you own wikipedia?

just more made up situations of a person whom has coding power and trying to assert domanice in the situation they have no connection to.

so everytime I do what I've been asked to do, another programmer will just make up another rule that I've apparently broken and block me or extend the ban.

your just making this up as you go along and making it a game that I have no chance of finshing. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also speak of "conflict " you insert catch phrase which trigger bots or modes to read and concur that your correct. So your allowed to disagree and over rule an edit, but I'm not allowed to, because you wrote do? That isn't combative, that's asking a question of why your allowed to make up things as you go along. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me but in actual fact, it's your way or the highway. Yet you state that's my angle...how? I have no angle, I'm blocked. Your controlling the narrative of where this goes and when you don't like what i type, you impose a ban or a block, which triggers a mod response and a ban.

So apart from a statement I retracted and then you replaced several times. Your now banning me because in your words I have no faith? In what exactly do I require faith of? That I'm suppose to sit out a 6 month ban? To then what. Be banned again because you feel threaten? Who decides the ban length, where is the source that suggests ban lengths were is the vote on lengths, where is my chance to ask why or contest them? You provide a link then decline it on some code uou make up, or you cite something that you code to be unchallengeable or you simply ignore the challenge to grind it out so I'll give up?

Just more yarns 203.211.104.234 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re more tech jargon talk to limit a normal person from having fredom to speak. Actually, that was intended to allow admins to unblock you without the recommended procedure.

I've hit the point where I've had enough of your yarns, so I am no longer engaging with you. Given that your block effectively means you're stuck on this page only, E noho rā. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So thats it in then, you've made up your own rules to block me. show me where in the rules of wikipedia there is a anything about "good faith"? you don't even explain what good faith even means or how it relates to anything?

you sound like donald trump - I don't like your opinion so therefore now I no longer talk to you and your blocked.

Again based off what exactly?

what is e noho ra? more made up talk to suit yourself again.

how is this even allowed. 203.211.104.234 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

bot manager has decided they've had enough? of what, they mention good faith now? this isn't church, faith has nothing to do with being allowed to post, same bot user has also supplied false information after removing an edit i made and admited not knowing what they wrote was not factually true. guy is now just playing a game where by they have decided not to answer to leave me stuck. using some made up terms to address me? this is't a place to make up stories. I was blocked because of an apparent threat, I removed it and removed and retracked the statement as asked, now they are just making up rules to block me

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

the edit you have made that is not factual that you said you would review has not been review and still stands. Your portaling false details to reader.

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.