User talk:220.253.28.41

Harajuku

Stop deleting chunks of this article or you will be blocked for vandalism. If some part merits deletion, explain this on the article's talk page and get agreement on it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And be careful of who you accuse of vandalism. I am a 2 1/2 year editor, not some anonymous deletionist who won't even register. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the wikipedia for around 4 years. Mostly on the Japanese site. Hoary repeatedly reverted back to an article which had been vandalized previously, and reentering links and POV information which are prohibited from articles. I was in the process of reporting Hoary for admin abuse, and his block further fuels my claims. Now it appears I will have to wait for that, and in that time I will research his past actions to find any other related incidents. In addition, I have no reason to register and I am not required to register nor does that me a lesser editor than a register user. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When your block (which you can appeal) expires, you are of course very free to report me for admin abuse. You are also of course very free to "research [my] past actions" (especially if you want to fall asleep quickly). I certainly don't want to dissuade you from that crusade; however, if you have any leftover time or energy, I recommend that you also write up a paragraph persuasively explaining what's wrong within the Harajuku article, for presentation on its talk page. After my demotion from admin I expect that I'll still be allowed to edit and I'd look forward to your comments on the article with some interest. If on the other hand you intend to sit out your short block and then return to unexplained deletions of parts of this article (with the occasional baseless allegation of vandalism), you can expect a longer block. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of appealing, unfortunately you pressed "save page" before me. I have been checking your edit history, and it seems you have a long history of editing the Harajuku article. Its funny that you never did the same actions when this same POV and nonsense information was removed last year, and remained until this edit [1]. Which even removes the official website for Harajuku and replaces it with personal links. My edits were not mass deletion, and were in fact a "manually undo" to an old version, which was not possible with the undo function. That article is in poor condition with a bunch of garbage that even you contest, ridiculous. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most of the information removed is sourced from unreliable references (such as blogs) and therefor allowed to be deleted, and removing such information is not vandalism. It was also mentioned in the edit summary that it was POV with unreliable references, and the reason for deletion. So please do explain your comments about the edit summary. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't bother telling people on this talk page of yours. Instead, write up what you want to say in a text file on your computer, so that when it's polished you can pop it in the article's talk page. If after a few days you get agreement for your proposal, act on it. And you may wish to create something related as part of your effort to have me de-adminned. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My posts here are not directed at anyone but yourself. Removing information provided by blogs ect does not require consent. It requires letting people know in the edit summary that such references were removed. Furthermore, I never said I was going to try and get your admin rights revoked (which is what I am assuming is what your mean by de-adminned) I said I was going to report you for your admin abuse. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, just humdrum admin abuse. ¶ Right then, stuff sourced to blogs. Yes, you can indeed remove this. But what's much better in a controversial article is to attach {{dubious}} to any material so sourced to warn of problems with the crappy sourcing. In the edit summary, try to avoid words like "crappy" (however justified), and say instead perhaps "flagging dubious sourcing". Elaborate within the talk page. Optionally, add {{fact}} to {{dubious}} so you're simultaneously calling for good sources and complaining about bad ones. If a couple of weeks go by without improvement in sourcing or credible promises to improve it, then delete the unsatisifactorily sourced material, clearly explaining yourself in the talk page and edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from edit summary "Article was vandalized with POV and incorrect facts. It was resorted to reflect the Japanese article on Harajuku. Furthermore, unreliable references were removed (where the POV seems to orignate" please point out your accusation of using the word crappy. Please, provide some valid wiki rules concerning any of your claims. The removed information has been contested for well over a year. Sources from blogs, personal websites, fan-sites are not accepted, especially a version of an article that inputs heavy POV and removes links to official websites and replaces them with sites which are to be avoided. Yes, you abused your right as an admin (and continue to do so) and in my opinion, you are what gives the wikipedia are poor reputation. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't waste your time complaining to me about me; instead, devote your time and effort to polishing an indictment that you can publish to the world when your block expires. ¶ I did not accuse anyone of having used the word crappy. ¶ For what claim do you want a "valid wiki rule"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain why you wrote this sentence "In the edit summary, try to avoid words like "crappy" (however justified), and say instead perhaps "flagging dubious sourcing"." You seem to be telling me not to do something, which I have never done. It sounds more like you are accusing me of saying something like "removing crappy stuff" or my descriptions in the edit summary are of poor quality, when they clearly mark what has been edited. Provide some guidelines (actually, policies) regarding your suggestions, where my edits have been wrong with removing POV sourced information. In addition to explaining how it was vandalism, especially when I did not even break the 3 revert rule and the information removed did not damage the article for vandal reasons. I know, when my block expires how about I go through many articles and add large amounts of sourced POV from blogs ect and then contest anyone that removes it, by informing them of your regulation which requires the information to remain for various weeks with a dubious mark next to it. I wouldn't be vandalizing articles, as I haven't done nothing wrong but add sourced information! I'm gonna have me a field day, particularly with articles you often visit. Does that acceptable? I don't think so. 220.253.28.41 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and any attempt to treat it as one will be brief and unsuccessful. Calm down and resume normal editing once your block expires. Engage in discussion where you find yourself in conflict; see WP:DR. Sandstein (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. However, Hoary's reasons are wrong, and the blocking is injustice as there was no vandalism taken place. I often edit articles relating to Japanese culture, and remove POV and try to add official or reputable sources (as I hate westerners portraying wrong things about my nation) There are so many articles about Japanese culture that are poor quality and have POV information. Hoary vandalized the article by entering unreliable references, and removing official websites. This is the first time I have been blocked, and the first time a situation for POV removal. Disgraceful, and distorts peoples perception on Japanese culture.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy due to persistent vandalism originating from your proxy server or network. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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).

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

Request reason:

2 reverts and a sentence rewrite, along with adding more detailed information to a photograph that can't be classified as vandalism. Admin abuse

Decline reason:

Whatever the merits of your content removals, please try to discuss them on the talk page first, as they appear to be controversial. — Sandstein (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2008 (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 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.