User talk:74.73.106.239

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Nancy Reagan page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Reagan

No I am cleaning up the article from anons like yourself who have flooded it with poor info, POV, and vandalism! Please stop! Happyme22 (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am asking you to stop for the good of this article. There is nothing POV about the page; it is very neutral. Happyme22 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Jmlk 1 7 08:34, 24 December 2007 (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 have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jmlk 1 7 08:53, 24 December 2007 (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.

{{unblock|As you suggested, I tried several times to discuss this issue on HappyTalk22's talk page, my own talk page, as well as by requesting the article be locked from changes. I don't believe this was a fair block and as you undid my edits and not HappyTalk22's edits to the Nancy Reagan page, that this block itself is based in bias.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It looks as though you did in fact try to discuss the changes with others. I'll unblock you, but please keep in mind that discussion and reaching an agreement comes before editing the article. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so there is no rush.

Request handled by: GlassCobra 09:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them. Repeatedly. To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such. Yet, I am the one who is still blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured? (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.) And your response is that "there is no deadline"? And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all? Riduculous.

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=So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them.  Repeatedly.  To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such.  Yet, I am the one who is <b>still </b> blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured?  (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.)  And your response is that "there is no deadline"?  And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all?  Riduculous. |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=So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them.  Repeatedly.  To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such.  Yet, I am the one who is <b>still </b> blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured?  (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.)  And your response is that "there is no deadline"?  And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all?  Riduculous. |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=So wait a minute, just so I understand, I edited the article as I saw necessary and as fair to reflect NPOV, and HappyTalk22 undit my edits without discussing them.  Repeatedly.  To the point where user Jmlk17 has undid my edits in a biased manned, and blacked me as such.  Yet, I am the one who is <b>still </b> blocked from editing (or even discussing) the article while it is featured?  (Yes, an hour later and I'm still blocked, even though you said I have been unblocked.)  And your response is that "there is no deadline"?  And HappyTalk22 and Jmlk17 are NOT blocked at all?  Riduculous. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

It looks like GlassCobra had intended to unblock you but did not. Considering that, considering Happyme22's statement that he overreacted [1], and considering that the blocking admin appears to have been a party to the dispute, I am willing to unblock you ... HOWEVER it needs to be with the understanding that any further reverts or partial reverts will result in the block being reimposed. Does that sound reasonable? (Once you post here that agree not to continue reverting, I will remove the block.) --B (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound reasonable. I will agree to discuss the wording of the second paragraph on the Nancy Reagan article on it's discussion page before making any edits.

I will not, however, agree to allow HappyTalk22 to continue to dominate over this article. While it is wonderful that he put work into the article, it only goes to fact that his behavior is at least in part territorial and motivated in bias. This is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not just the person who put research into the article (for which we are all obviously sincerely grateful). You can also check the list of other articles on which he has worked to see that most of the articles in his domain are on Republicans or Right Wing themes...nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does go to show potential for bias in his manipulation of this article.

If you (or anybody else) check the recent history of the Nancy Reagan article, several other posters and cited sources have also suggested that the China Pattern Incident was minor and not the main reason that the First Lady was criticized; and that the article as written is somewhat misleading. The criticism of her First Lady-ship was due to her extravagant nature during a time of economic decline in the nation, which is cited clearly in the article below. The first paragraphs should be a summary, no?

I am suggesting again that Featured Articles are more stable than this one has proven to be. Lastly, I am wondering why he has not been blocked, considering that he states that "as someone without a unique user name he will give me no respect" and here [2] I have politely asked about making what I feel to be necessary changes to this article without any response by him. He continues to dominate over this article.

Thank you, in advance for seeing that I am only interested in conforming to Wikistandards as best possible in a civil manner.74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.