User talk:69.225.3.119

Your latest message

Your latest response at our bot approval brawl didn't go through or something. It's just your signature. Just letting you know. Abyssal (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

FYI, I started an ANI thread to determine whether your recent edits were appropriate or not. I did this because I am obviously not qualified to judge myself since I am directly involved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week for disruptive editing. Please take this time to reflect on your actions and refrain from making frivolous accusations and POINT violations upon your return. — Jake Wartenberg 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stupid, and I saw this coming as soon as ThaddeusB put his "please SOMEONE do me a favor and block this IP so I can run my bot" notice on AN/I.

Hissy fitting, 13-year-old, passive-aggressive idiot signing off to make sure that administrators can name call all they want, --69.225.3.119 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS It is nice to have the name calling, thoroughly, 100% confirmed and endorsed without the pesky little input of the other side, isn't it? --69.225.3.119 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and ONE WEEK FOR FIRST OFFENSE WITHOUT ANY WARNING! That's impressive! --69.225.3.119 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Abyssal and ThaddeusB get me BLOCKED FOR A WEEK, then talk about me?

barnstars

contributions, hard work, to improve the quality of wikipedia's science articles, something I've been doing for years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=69.226.103.13&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

Now I'm blocked for a week, at User:ThaddeusB's request so that he and User:Abyssal can say what they want about me, without my responding, something Abyssal is taking full advantage of, and get the bot through without having to address legitimate concerns:

1. the reason anybot created such a horrid mess was that the bot operator did not know the material his bot was adding and he had no one from the community who knew it and was willing to vet it: the same situation in play with contentCreationBot

This will not produce good science articles, good paleontology articles: shutting the experts up, so that those who admit to no expertise can add 10,000 pieces of unvetted data.

It is also likely that these data will generate unvetted content on wiki mirrors.

When I informed Abyssal that he had created an article with a misspelling, he simply ignored my post for months. This misinformation was transferred through cyber space in wiki mirrors.

Abyssal takes no responsibility for that.

And, now that ThaddeusB succeeded brilliantly in baiting me, including with a community-banned editor who's supposed to be on probabtion coming by to call me a 13-year-old.

The most disgusting thing is that ThaddeusB got me blocked for a week and now Abyssal and ThaddeusB act as if I can respond to what they have to say, so they can plow forward and get a bot flag for entering 10,000 pieces of unvetted data into tables on wikipedia.

--69.225.3.119 (talk) 18:57, 24 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).

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

Request reason:

This block was purely punitive for my disagreeing with an administrator about his request for bot approval. NO WARNINGS. No one ever asked Abyssal to stop calling me names, no one being the administrator, ThaddeusB who asked that I be blocked, no asked anyone, especially the administrator who asked for me to be blocked, to treat me in civil manner, to address my legitimate concerns (okay, a couple of editors did ask that my concerns be addressed--but this was ignored). I attempted to raise specific concerns about this bot, with no one listening. I was insulted, called names, baited by a community-banned user now on probation, ignored; then, a BAG member came by and asked if the bot was ready for trial ignoring the complete lack of community consensus for the bot. He says he didn't ignore it, he just wanted a summary, but that's not what he asked for, he asked if the bot was ready for trial edits, implying the next step was not to reach consensus, but to go forward with trial edits. Now that I've been blocked for a WEEK, without any warning, without EVER having been blocked before, while administrators CONTINUE to allow others to bait me, call me names, discuss me where I can't respond, and ignore LEGITIMATE concerns, the editors who wanted me blocked are busy discussing me and trying to get the bot into trial stage, but acting as if I still can answer them. A WEEK! I was called a 13-year-old by a community banned member on probation. I was told I was throwing "hissy fits," that I was "passive aggressive" for not continuing to remind Abyssal to clean up his messy articles. How much provoking is encouraged to get someone to respond to the point where they can then be banned for long enough to get them to shut up so others can get their way? And Betacommand calls me the 13-year-old?

Decline reason:

I'm declining your unblock request, as you have not addressed your behavior, but have rather addressed the behavior of others. Please resubmit your request with a focus on your behavior and how you plan to change it to avoid future blocks. TNXMan 19:26, 24 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:

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

Request reason:

So, you're just punishing me for behaving badly? No problem: I agree not to discuss these issues with any other users. In the future I will simply state my opinion on the matter, dealing strictly with the issue at hand, without discussing any other users, even those who call me names. I will be silent in the future every time I am called a name, and I will stick with only discussing the matter at hand. How's that? And, I apologize for reacting badly when my legitimate concerns were ignored and when I was called names. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 19:32, 24 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=So, you're just punishing me for behaving badly? No problem: I agree not to discuss these issues with any other users. In the future I will simply state my opinion on the matter, dealing strictly with the issue at hand, without discussing any other users, even those who call me names. I will be silent in the future every time I am called a name, and I will stick with only discussing the matter at hand. How's that? And, I apologize for reacting badly when my legitimate concerns were ignored and when I was called names. --[[Special:Contributions/69.225.3.119|69.225.3.119]] ([[User talk:69.225.3.119#top|talk]]) 19:32, 24 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=So, you're just punishing me for behaving badly? No problem: I agree not to discuss these issues with any other users. In the future I will simply state my opinion on the matter, dealing strictly with the issue at hand, without discussing any other users, even those who call me names. I will be silent in the future every time I am called a name, and I will stick with only discussing the matter at hand. How's that? And, I apologize for reacting badly when my legitimate concerns were ignored and when I was called names. --[[Special:Contributions/69.225.3.119|69.225.3.119]] ([[User talk:69.225.3.119#top|talk]]) 19:32, 24 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=So, you're just punishing me for behaving badly? No problem: I agree not to discuss these issues with any other users. In the future I will simply state my opinion on the matter, dealing strictly with the issue at hand, without discussing any other users, even those who call me names. I will be silent in the future every time I am called a name, and I will stick with only discussing the matter at hand. How's that? And, I apologize for reacting badly when my legitimate concerns were ignored and when I was called names. --[[Special:Contributions/69.225.3.119|69.225.3.119]] ([[User talk:69.225.3.119#top|talk]]) 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Some of the barnstars I've gotten, and they're not the only ones:

		The Original Barnstar
		The Original Barnstar is awarded to User:69.226.103.13, who has greatly contributed to the creation of new articles, the preservation of good articles, and the continued improvement of articles needing help, with little or no recognition. Wikipedia thanks you for your hard work. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I don't think I've ever given a barnstar to an anonymous editor before, but I'd just like to say thanks for all the effort you've put in to cleaning up after Anybot. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 21:52, 3 July 2009 (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.