User talk:216.231.141.9

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your host, 216.231.141.9 (216.231.141.9), is registered to Ezy.Net Corporation, an Internet service provider through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy, so you may receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[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).

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)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

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)[reply]

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)[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 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:

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)[reply]

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=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.[[Special:Contributions/216.231.141.9|216.231.141.9]] ([[User talk:216.231.141.9#top|talk]]) 14:06, 20 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=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.[[Special:Contributions/216.231.141.9|216.231.141.9]] ([[User talk:216.231.141.9#top|talk]]) 14:06, 20 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=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.[[Special:Contributions/216.231.141.9|216.231.141.9]] ([[User talk:216.231.141.9#top|talk]]) 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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.