User talk:67.167.97.60

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ye (album). – Vistadan 19:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Angelic 2 the Core— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Angelic 2 the Core. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what u mean 67.167.97.60 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Venom (Eminem song), you may be blocked from editing. Everedux (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Venom (Eminem song). Snowycats (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Scott (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

April 2019

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Angelic 2 the Core— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sophie (musician) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account 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 Sophie (musician); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sophie (musician), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sophie (musician), you may be blocked from editing. If you want to remove an infobox picture, please receive consensus from other users through the article's talk page. aNode (discuss) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits and leaving abusive talk messages.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mfield (Oi!) 16:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently stating that it's a bad idea to leave in an extremely outdated and low-quality image, as well as non-encyclopedic information that adds nothing to the article, is abusive and disruptive. Or perhaps someone will claim it's because I didn't say it nicely enough. Either way, I will no longer be abusive and disruptive in the future, and make better contributions to the community. 67.167.97.60 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We are always moved by the conversion of sinners, especially when it happens as quickly as in your case. In a week's time, you'll be a saint and we look forward to your contributions as such. Favonian (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (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.

Block

I have reblocked this account now with talk page access disabled, due to your attempts to refactor your block message to reframe your attack on another editor. There is nothing "abusive" about using a profane slur directed at another editor. It is abusive. You would do well to spend your week's break taking a long deep breath and reading up con some of our core principles and policies. Your history is a string of warnings and blocks, and non collegial editing. Mfield (Oi!) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot to respond to this today, but oh my gosh. You cannot be serious.

I, like SOPHIE, am a trans woman. A black one, at that. So let me assure you, I know what a profane slur is.

"Fucker" is not one.

Refactoring what I said("nice try, fucker," which, while admittedly not the most civil thing to say, is practically impossible for anyone possessing emotional intelligence to take to heart) by referring to it as a "profane slur" and as "abusive" and removing all record of what I actually said so that it sounded worse than it actually was is a good way to out yourself as dishonest and not as collegial as you have pretenses of being.

If it bothered you that I called them "fucker," then that's perfectly cool, but don't lie by omission like that. The fact that you, as a white dude, would poison the well in conversation with and misrepresent a trans woman, in reference to an issue involving an article about another trans woman no less(in which you defended the decision to keep up non-noteworthy and outdated info that adds nothing to the article), says a whole lot, but I won't even bother getting into that any further(especially since it's Ramadan and I'd much rather not get too bothered by anything.) Either way, I'll be nicer from now on.

All the stuff before 18 April, save for a couple of minor edits, is not "my history," by the by. 67.167.97.60 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what mental gymnastics are required to claim that using that term directed at another editor is acceptable, but it is totally unacceptable here on WP. The comments were removed as is policy for obscene language. I will be redacting your comments above also once you have read this. I am not sure how you have come to the conclusion that i am a "white dude" or what bearing that would or would not have on my enforcing community policies, aside from you attempting to make an issue where there is none to divert from your own behavior. The content of the article has nothing to do with this. No one's skin color, race, sexuality or other characteristics should or do have any bearing on our policies nor on your choice to use language that the community has deemed unacceptable. Further if you desire to not have your edits potentially mistaken with prior edits from this, or any, IP then you would be advised to create an account. Mfield (Oi!) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you're saying is that you read ten whole words of my response. Cool.

I acknowledged no less than three times that what I said wasn't civil or acceptable and that I wouldn't approach other editors that way in the future, but I guess you had to ignore that to make yourself feel better about continuing down this "what you said was not only uncivil, but totally a slur" road. This entire issue came about because of the content of the article. And I came to the conclusion that you're a white dude because you seem to think "fucker" is a slur. Maybe I am mischaracterizing you, and if I am, then that was my mistake, and either way I'm sorry that it hurt your feelings. Also, I'm not exactly sure why you think those characteristics aren't relevant, considering that people like me and SOPHIE would know better what slurs are(that is, unless you want to get bogged down in semantics) since we get called slurs every day while people like you almost certainly don't. Nice try. 67.167.97.60 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the same individual, who I checkuser blocked in October 2018, is still in control of this IP. You cannot edit under any account or IP while you're original block remains in place and any appeal of that block will need to be made through that original account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what are you even talking about? Clear how? What about me makes you draw that conclusion? What individual? What original block? I've never even had an account before. Nice try. 67.167.97.60 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Man with a Mission. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Drill music, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:27, 11 November 2021 (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.