Jump to content

User talk:72.185.61.209

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.185.61.209 (talk) at 21:56, 30 July 2012 (→‎Alright then.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ignacio (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blood of Christ, you may be blocked from editing. Vrenator talk 09:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hors d'oeuvre, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hors d'oeuvre was changed by 72.185.61.209 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891035 on 2012-04-09T07:19:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blood of Christ, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:11, 9 April 2012 (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.

Advice on problems with editing

Hello 72.185.61.209! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Miscellaneous

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I see that some of your edits have turned out to be controversial, and I thought it might help to give you some advice. I am also giving you a welcome message, which includes links to various pages, some of which may be helpful to you.

  1. The issue at Hors d'oeuvre was obviously just a false positive from a bot, and you have dealt with it. It can be irritating when things like this happen, but not worth bothering about.
  2. I am certain that it is a mistake to call your edits at Blood of Christ "vandalism", as you seem to be acting in perfectly good faith. It seems to me that your edit is probably perfectly valid, but it is not clear to everyone that it is. When one editor thinks an edit is valid and others don't, it is not helpful if everyone just keeps on reverting to the version they prefer. Doing so is known as "edit warring", and if an editor keeps on doing it after being warned they can be blocked from editing to stop further disruption. Please note that it is not acceptable to edit war even if you are convinced you are right. I see that you have given a link to another relevant Wikipedia article to show that your edit makes sense, which is useful, and a step in the right direction. However, a link to another Wikipedia article is of limited use for this kind of purpose, as one Wikipedia article is no more authoritative than another one. It would be best if you could give a reliable source (not a Wikipedia page) that clearly shows that the expression "Blood of Christ" is used in reference to the circumcision. Another point is that, when you find other editors disagree with your edits, it is helpful if you can give a more detailed explanation of your edits than a brief edit summary. It is possible to post a message on the talk page of any editor who has disagreed with you about it, but it is usually better to do it on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Blood of Christ), as it is more visible to other editors who may be involved. A short note on a user's talk page calling attention to your post on the article's talk page may be helpful. One other suggestion is to create an account for yourself. This can have several advantages, including making it easier for others to contact you. Also, some editors are more likely to assume that doubtful edits are vandalism if they are from an unregistered user, and more likely to take edits seriously if they come from a named account. This may not be at all justified, but it is a fact, so you may find it helps to edit from an account.
  3. You have also been edit warring at Lone Wolf and Cub. Unfortunately, nobody has given you a clear explanation what the problem is. There are, in fact, several problems. Probably the most important one is the fact that the sentence you keep adding is not written in comprehensible English. "One of the Person of interest tv show series is named 'Wolf and a cub' " does not actually make sense. If I were asked to guess what you meant, I would suggest "One of the people of interest in the tv show series is named 'Wolf and a cub' ", but is that what you meant? I am honestly not sure. "Wolf and a cub" seems an unlikely name for a person, so I wonder if you meant something else. However, even if that is so, once any addition of content has turned out to be controversial, as this one has, you must not re-add it without providing a reliable source to show that your edit is valid. I have made a fairly quick search for sources, and have not managed to find anything saying that there is a character with that name. Also, even if you can provide a source for the existence of a character by that name, whether it is "of interest" is a matter of opinion. A Wikipedia article should not contain your own commentary or judgements.

I hope this has been helpful to you. Another editor has suggested that you should be blocked from editing, but I thought it would be more constructive to offer you advice, in the hope that you can deal with the problems. You are clearly making some useful contributions to Wikipedia, and I don't think blocking you would be helpful. (However, if you were to continue edit warring after being warned, a block would be likely.) Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the light of your recent editing, it seems you mean that there is a television show called "Person of interest", and that one of its episodes is named "Wolf and a cub". However, that still leaves several problems: (1) The sentence is still not in coherent English, and I doubt that many people would understand what it means, without any other information to give it context. (2) There is still no source. (3) It is not clear that it is relevant to the subject of the article, which (as far as I can see) is a totally different subject which merely happens to have a similar title. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring on Lone Wolf and Cub. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Christoph Waltz, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yasht101 04:57, 18 April 2012 (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 currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christoph Waltz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bmusician 07:45, 18 April 2012 (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 1 week for persistent edit warring. You have edit warred on several articles. At first, you may have simply been unaware that doing so was unacceptable, but you have continued after the situation was explained, and even after a short block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Do this again and your talk page access will be removed. Thank you, Bmusician 09:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't have to do it again: your talk page access has been removed, and your block length has been increased to two weeks, because of use of this talk page for a personal attack. if you choose to edit again when the block expires, please try to bear in mind that Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by approaching the task as a battle against other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Global Positioning System shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Meters (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one month

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for vandalism, for a period of one month.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

please unblock me. i will not edit gps article. only discussion page to continue with resources and reasoning in recent conversation 72.185.61.209 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:43, 27 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

please unblock me. i will not edit gps article. only discussion page to continue with resources and reasoning in recent conversation

block is not here as a tool of punishment. i have not disturbed other articles. Article temp lock would be enough solution. one of the wiki rules is :"be bold" .blocking ip does not block user from editing wiki. 72.185.61.209 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock requests do not indicate that you understand why you have been blocked. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the implication that you will continue your battleground behavior on the talk page is not reassuring. You are correct, blocks are not punishment, they are intended to prevent further abuse. This address has now been blocked four times for the same infraction, and there is no indication that this behavior will cease. It has lost the trust of the Wikipedia community, so it is blocked for a longer duration than before. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2012 (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.

Please do not remove declined unblock requests from this page; other administrators need to see them to review your past appeals. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have once again restored the previously declined unblock request. Continued removal may result in revoking of talk page access. --Kinu t/c 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=please unblock me. i will not edit gps article. only discussion page to continue with resources and reasoning in recent conversation


i am sure you misunderstand. I am being asked questions which i would like to answer with source. I am unable to do so while being block. futuremore i have no intention to disturb wikipedia and i understand i can be reblocked anytime. So there is no risk to wikipedia. and my block is contraproductive. i am being blocked without having option to explain questions asked. 72.185.61.209 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already explained your position. We understand, and several editors have explained at length why the 4 satellite solution is the norm. The approximation with 3 satellites is included in the article. You were rreverted 6 times by 4 different editors. There seems to be clear concensus that the current article is correct. Meters (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then.

So why this Month long block? punishing someone much? How is the IP block protecting wikipedia? Hardly so. only someone bruised ago. correct me if i am wrong. let me remind you that this is open IP. and my edit are not related to previous blocks. btw i can of course release the IP and renew for new one anytime. 72.185.61.209 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.185.61.209&oldid=505000049"