User talk:50.128.155.168

Welcome!

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

Your IP address, 50.128.155.168, is registered to a customer of Comcast Cable and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.

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.

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.

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

If vandalism is noted 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.

That's Funny. But is it Relevant?

The addition about the virtually naked 24 Hour Fitness member being kicked out of a club is hysterical. I'm just wondering. Is it relevant enough to have in the article? You'll see I started the Criticism section, adding all the lawsuits and the dubious BBB ranking. The ejection of the man, not even half clothed is less than a common occurrence but would appear to be an isolated even. What are your thoughts? I'll come back in a couple days. Have a great weekend. :) --50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--WPPilot 12:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

M'ooookaaaay. I donno how long it'll stay there. Who knows? Could be a long time. If it is removed, it wont be by my hand. I was just wondering. Again, cheers,--50.128.155.168 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing your comments on my talk page, because of where you located it -- at the top, instead of at the bottom, where it properly belongs. You are welcome to re-post it as the LAST post, AT THE BOTTOM, if you want. If you do, I will try my best to answer your questions, at my earliest convenience, which might be awhile. EditorASC (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I see you are on Medical Leave. I appreciate that. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines for America

WP:NPOVN

Escalated to [[1]]

November 2013

Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question. Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On content: Since user:Intermittentgardener is unwilling to talk about improving the article, I've submitted the request to do so on WP:NPOVN. No one has helped. This is not forum shopping.

On Personality: Since Intermittentgardener has violated as many of the Wikipedia guiding principles as he has, I opened a grievance on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. No one has helped. This is not forum shopping.

Since I sought advice on how to deal with a Wikipedia violator, I left a message on User talk:Mark Arsten. I followed his advice which has yielded no help what so ever. See above. Since then I found the real way to file a grievance. A detail oddly left out by User talk:Mark Arsten. This is not forum shopping.

Toddst1 said, "in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." In the interest of full disclosure I included a virtual flurry of links to all the problem-solving forums I've gone to and gotten no help. I've fulfilled my due diligence here. It's not that I haven't gotten answers I didn't like. I didn't get any answers at all.

You explain to me how my assertions on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page is "spindoctoring"? I have outlined in full detail how many Wikipedia rules User:Intermittentgardener has trampled to write his cherry-picked POV addition to the article in question and no one, not one admin, has admonished him on his behavior. Or, or....told me why it hasn't happened. He is compelled by Wikipedia rules to discus his edits with anyone who has a difference of opinion. He has failed to do so. I want answers from somebody. If User:intermittentgardener has some rule he thinks I'm breaking then let it be heard. Until then, it's my story against...my story. Therefore I cannot be "spin doctoring" anything. I will not put up with passive aggression from anybody. The Wikipedia guiding principals insure I shouldn't have to.

Why am I made to be on the defensive here when I am the one following Wikipedia guidelines?

This event is an epiphany for me as to how I see Wikipedia. It is clear user:intermittentgardener is in multiple violation, but I'm the one being made to chase my tail?? How about you simply solve the real problem for the Airlines for America article instead of create more? Either force user:intermittentgardener to the table or revert his edits. Somebody do their job. Mediate. SILENCE IS NOT AN ANSWER--50.128.155.168 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The page does not have enough editor traffic to satisfy the RfC rule Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct of two or more editors trying to contact the party to bring them to negotiations. I could wait years to fulfill this requirement. So again. No help.

You are raging out of control again. Intermittentgardener (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're an inordinately rude Wikipedia editor. You create dissonance and then question it.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

Hi. I'm the administrator who addressed your post on ANI - I'm sure you noticed that it was closed as a trivial content dispute and forum shopping. In addition, I see you don't like my note above where I directly quoted policy, verbatim.

You accused intermittentgardener (talk · contribs) of being "Unable to Follow Basic Wikipedia Editing Protocol" and not discussing the contentious edits on the article talk page. I'm not sure why you're misrepresenting things but there is clearly a discussion on the article talk page that this editor has been and remains involved in.

What I see is you exhibiting the hallmarks of tendentious editing, among them (but not limited to):

Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith discussion from other editors
Rejecting or ignoring community input: resisting moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
Failure or refusal to "get the point"
Forum shopping when you don't like the outcome on the talk page and the rate at which noticeboard discussions are progressing (or not progressing as often happens when a complaint does not have merit)

Now, I'm not weighing in on the content of the article. I am weighing in on your conduct and if this disruptive behavior continues, you will likely find yourself blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure we are dealing with this editor XB70Valyrie, who has been banned. He uses IP as socks, writes the same way (See how he capitalizes the first letter of each words on subject headings), tries to read the exact same content almost word-for-word, and shows the same inability to get along with others. Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should file a WP:SPI. Please do that. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah-woah-woah. My disruptive behavior?? My patterns of editing?? It's obvious from looking at User:Intermittentgardener's Talk page that he's a Tea Party editor, he's taken classes at the Ted Cruise School of My-way-or-the-highway Wikipedia editing since he'd rather shut something down than to discuss it, and had he simply acted civilly - in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines - I wouldn't be asking for help. Why don't you take a step back and look at cause....and effect.

I maintain that disappearing from negotiations after having the page protected, returning only question the effects of totalitarian editing displayed by the parties your NPOV'ing is not active participation in article improvement.

I'm too poor to have internet access at home. I come to a crew room to edit. Scores of people come in and outta here every day, including me. We all have one thing in common, aviation. Was there an issue with this IP before? Sounds like someone using this IP had been banned.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2013 (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.