User talk:98.248.33.198

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to 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 (98.248.33.198) 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! --clpo13_(talk) 09:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there! Welcome, and I hope that you eventually decide to create an account. Anyway, I declined the speedy you placed here because the article doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria (CSD). Alternatively, I nominated it at articles for deletion as a blatantly non-neutral article. Thank you for this contribution, I just wanted to let you know so you don't make the same mistake again! Keep up the good work. ceranthor 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourced info

Hi there. Please your edits of mediumship on the talk page. Do not remove sourced information without a solid reason. Spritebox (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits fail to conform to notability and POV guidelines, as mentioned in my edit summary. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is in mainstream media- just because you haven't heard of it it doesn't mean it lacks notability. Secondly, it merely gives an example, just because it actually speaks in favour of mediumship instead of against it like the rest of the article, it doesnt make it overly POV. Spritebox (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing with the assumption that the ability to speak with the dead is real is where the POV comes in. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Joyner

Hi,

I don't know why my submission on Joyner has been removed, but I went to great lengths to insert a paragraph that provides further insight while being neutral. Would you please provide an explanation for editing out my paragraph, or provide suggestions for wording changes that are more acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemute (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis. 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. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Since when is reverting blanking vandalism considered a blockable offense? If you review the article history in question, you'll easily see that huge portions of the section Near Cyprus were being deleted. I merely restored well referenced text. It also seems rather arbitrary that only one editor was blocked for "edit warring." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand why you have been blocked - here on Wikipedia, we have a policy against edit-warring, in which two or more users revert each other's edits three or more times in a 24 hour period. If you believe that large portions of content should be removed or wish to dispute content in an article, article talk pages are where this is to be done. Wikipedia runs on consensus - not anarchy. While you are waiting for the block to expire, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR, WP:POV, and WP:AGF -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

In regards to your questions, I blocked you for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis and not Xellas (talk · contribs) because you had been warned three times ([1], [2], [3]), while Xellas had received zero warnings. However I did go ahead and issue a 3RR warning to him [4] for his role in the edit war. I see that Xellas chose to disregard that warning by reverting the article again [5] to his preferred version, an action for which he was blocked for 31 hours [6]. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing

Hello 98.248.33.198, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(remove tags)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

September 2009

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to SK PRODUCTIONS: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Please warn users when placing a speedy delete template on a page they created. Abc518 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

The recent edit you made to Hollow Earth constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. Removing original research is not vandalism. Next time try looking at the history, which would have shown that several other editors agree it's inappropriate.98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Please take it a bit easier in your edit summaries if you could; also, when you're dealing with a contentious article, could I ask that when another party is obviously edit-warring, you take a report to the three-revert noticeboard for admins to get involved? Thanks for the work you're doing, btw - I just do suggest that you ease up with your comments to others, as they are starting to border on uncivil at times. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I filed an edit warring report on TelsaBlue here, so you don't need to do that. Other than that, I second everything Tony Fox said. Try not to go over 3 reverts in 24 hours yourself ... Cardamon (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Pubic hair, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You assume too much - my edit was about redundancy, not censorship. How many pics are needed to illustrate the article? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Twenty One Card Trick, you will be blocked from editing. Eeekster (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The coding contributes nothing to the article and is in fact completely unrelated to cards and magic. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That in no way relieves you of the obligation to explain your edits when deleting content. Eeekster (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but your lack of assumption of good faith is acceptable? HA! 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That assumption is only valid until evidence of bad faith is presented. This page and the block log tend to blow it for you. Eeekster (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again with the faulty assumptions. Boy, you're 0 for 3 so far. Just go away. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please warn people when you undo their vandalism. --Abc518 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Warn People when you revert vandalism. This is easy when you have Twinkle installed. but I think you need a user name to use it. abc518 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Please warn users when you tag their pages for Speedy Deletion. abc518 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

Removal of PROD from Johnny Hiland

Hello 98.248.33.198, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Johnny Hiland has been removed. It was removed by Fozforus with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 314926982 by 98.248.33.198 (talk) - no need for that nonsense)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fozforus before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Channel 7 (musician)

Just a friendly note on Channel 7 (musician). Remember to take a look at the article history when tagging for speedy deletion -- there was a "good" version that could be reverted back to. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

When you see other users or IP addresses causing vandalism, you need to use the correct template. You don't just give them the "last warning" after only one vandalism. See WP:UTM for more info. Thanks <tommy> (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When it's not the first time that person has vandalized the same article, albeit under a different IP/user name, I will warn with what I think appropriate. Removing text from another's talk page, however, IS highly inappropriate. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't lie to me. You gave a new user a final warning template. WP:UTM There are different levels. Read them! And how do you know they have other user names? Also, you're going to tell me what's inappropriate? OK, who's the one who's gotten blocked above? Don't call the kettle black, my friend. <tommy> (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, within the space of 30 minutes there was this, this, this and this. Ever hear of the duck test? Now go do something productive. Oh, and the block above is completely unrelated to your issues.98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get wise with me, your block still speaks volumes about your own judgment and personality. :) Have a nice night. <tommy> (talk)

Yeah, it shows that I value content above silly protocols and don't tolerate fools easily. No response to the multiple diffs I provided? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You warn a user after each one, you dont just warn them with a "this is your final warning" because 1. you're not an admin 2. that's not fair nor is it how WP works. You warn him/her after each edit, starting at level 1 or 2. <tommy> (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, whatever. I'm done with this conversation, which is nothing but a distraction from the real reason I'm here, which is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)