Jump to content

User talk:96.237.129.194

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.237.129.194 (talk) at 04:59, 1 November 2009 (→‎October 2009). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (96.237.129.194) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --A NobodyMy talk 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for disruptive editing. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 23:47, 31 October 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.
From your talk page I believe I was banned for stating that Kensosis/Salty Boatr are LIERS
Why don't you undelete my defense on YOUR talk page and READ it for a change. BTW: That's the THIRD time you have deleted my attempts to defend myself from being gang banged by the Kenosis/Saltyoatr sockpuppet brigade. 96.237.129.194 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for using multiple ID's my IP service changes the ID every so often and it is not under my control. Something which you should be aware of , being a computer geek and all. As for joining wiki, if you and SaltyBoatr are the norm for editors, i'd rather commit suicide.
Why don't you ask the other editors of the Second Amendment Article if SaltyBoatr is a disruptive editor. OH! I notice that aside from an occasional drop in, like myself, they have all left. And looking at past posts, they all seem to think that SaltyBoatr is a pinhead.

From wiki

How disruptive editors evade detection

Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for one of several possible reasons: 

   * their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive
   * their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article
   * their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article
   * their edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch
   * conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles that few people watch.

[edit] Signs of disruptive editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who: 

   * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
   * Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
   * Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
   * Does not engage in consensus building:
         o repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
         o repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
   * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may: 

   * Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

[edit] Refusal to 'get the point' Shortcuts: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:IDHT WP:HEAR See also: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not.96.237.129.194 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'll leave your rant here, but you have been blocked for disruptive editing. The borderline insults and attacks against editors are one thing, but continuing to copy and paste your rants across Wikipedia is another. If you wish to participate on Wikipedia, keep in mind that discussions should be civil and be done in an attempt towards consensus. Please contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner. Your actions have not been productive nor done in an effort to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of civility. tedder (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that my "disruptive editing" has been looked upon with favor by a number of other editors who I never saw before. It could be that spreading my "rant" across wikipedia brought some interested parties who actually bothered to look at my complaints ( unlike someone that you see in the mirror everyday) and they think that my edits were constructive enough to be restored.

BTW Kenosis/SaltyBoatr are most certainly into 3RR violation territory at this point as they tried to revert THOSE editors as well.

Lastly: Here's something for our talk page that you might want to keep . "You have a mind like a steel trap. Once closed, it stays that way."96.237.129.194 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.237.129.194&oldid=323226526"