Jump to content

User talk:98.0.33.169

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


November 2017

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Presidency of George W. Bush has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Assassin's Creed (video game). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2017 (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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}.  – Gilliam (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fatass. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Treetear (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2017 (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.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Adventures of Pluto Nash, you may be blocked from editing. Treetear (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2017 (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.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gucci Gang. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may use this form to request a username. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. SpencerT♦C 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cardi B has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • For help, take a look at the introduction.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cardi B was changed by 98.0.33.169 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95903 on 2018-01-05T00:49:02+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since being unblocked, I have only edited one page, besides, isn't three months a bit much for one edit since being unblocked?

Decline reason:

Back from a block and straight down to vandalism again. Not only is this block fully justified but if vandalism continues when this block expires then the next block will be 12 months. Just Chilling (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is not "fully justified". Gilliam is a bully who feels like blocking people who make ONE edit to an article after being unblocked are deserving of being blocked. That's ridiculous. Let me put this in perspective. Let's say you were to be convicted of a crime like drunk driving, and it was your first arrest/conviction, and you got a life sentence in prison. That's essentially what this is. Looking at Gilliam's history, he is a cyberbully who blocks people because of biases against them, and I hope he gets his administrative priviledges removed, and I hope I can sue him, but to do so, I would need to get a lawyer. So, he's lucky. But, so help me God, I get a lawyer, Gilliam is who I will be suing first. But, back to this. Also, TWELVE GODDAMN MONTHS?! You claim that the block is justified, and even if I make ONE GODDAMN EDIT that may be vandalism, I get 12 DAMN MONTHS? Clearly, you are a greedy person, too. Lighten up. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can stop it.

Decline reason:

Decline and revoking talk page access; Making legal threats is not allowed, nor is your vandalism. only (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (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.

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 only (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Morgan Spurlock, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super Size Me. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  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 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.
Given your editing history, I'm forced to assume you're well aware of Wikipedia policies regarding trying to force your own changes into an article, especially given that you're already engaged in a discussion at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 16:15, 25 July 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.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Super Size Me shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. � (talk) 16:17, 25 July 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.

Why

[edit]

Why was I blocked? 98.0.33.169 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why was it for a year? 98.0.33.169 (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, this is not technically an unblock. I would like to request the block be trimmed a bit. Isn't 12 months a bit much for edit warring? Especially following a 3 month block? Like shouldn't it be 6 months, at the highest? Edit warring normally leads to 24 hours of a block.

Decline reason:

There's a history of behaviour from this IP address where abusive behaviour simply continues. Escalating block lengths are appropriate. If you are the person who was encouraging people to get raped, you should consider yourself indefinitely prohibited from Wikipedia. We don't tolerate such garbage here. Yamla (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2018 (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.

June 2019

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to K-pop, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Almy (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, I apologize. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Satoru Iwata. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Everedux (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Stone Temple Pilots. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 22 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked for "long-term disruption?" Who do you think I am and what did you think I did? I am trying to avoid being confrontational here, I just want to know who apparently you think I am, since I have not been editing unconstructively as of late, in fact, personally, I think I've turned around. But, I digress. I'd just like to see what the issue is and try to sort it out.

Decline reason:

As per above and below. Yamla (talk) 23:16, 22 July 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.

Review this, Wikipedia:Genre warrior, it (plus the warnings on your talk page) will explain exactly why you've been blocked. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear source to the edit on There She Goes Again, if you go and look at the history, you will find that. It has a source. Plus, on the Stone Temple Pilots page, the very genre is listed below with a source. There's no need to extraneously add it above if it's elsewhere. Plus on Benzino, you reinstated WP:NPOV violations. I am not saying this to disparage you, I am pointing this out since you seemed to blindly revert my edits. At least that's how I saw it, personally. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:FlightTime, what do you think of my explanation? Be honest with me, I would like to hear your response to what I've had to say. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was NOT adding wrong genres. If you look at the pages, you will see I was adding sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] All of these edits prove that I know how to cite sources for my genre edits, and I'm not just mindlessly warring over genres. Plus, in the cases of my edits to Stone Temple Pilots, the genre was very clearly listed below. Adding the source yet again would have been extraneous. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Duplicate unblock request. See below. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most, though not all, of those sources fail WP:RS. If you think tvtropes.org is an acceptable source, the block is certainly warranted. Even if you don't, you need to convince us you won't engage in genre warring again if unblocked. Being correct is not sufficient. --Yamla (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yamla, I searched for TvTropes across Wikipedia to see if it was an acceptable source, there was nothing saying "no" or "yes." I didn't know how to take that. I chose to add it, simply on the axiom of, "eh, if it's not an acceptable source, it'll get reverted." It did not, so I thought, "hey, it is OK, I guess." I do thank you for pointing it out, though. I also do not get how I was genre warring, I wasn't fighting over edits, necessarily. I would love to hear back, since I would like some more guidance on the vaguely confusing issue of genre warring. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you now explain why tvtropes is not a reliable source? --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yamla, OK, I will try to answer that to the best of my abilities, and try to get to the general gist of it: TvTropes is unreliable because it, like Wikipedia, is user-generated. It's the reason why we can't use, say like, the AllMusic genre sidebar, or a podcast where someone is talking about genres that a band fits into. Would you say that that's why TvTropes isn't a reliable source, or do you believe that I forgot something vital? If so, I will try to respond to that or any other questions you may have. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that's why TvTropes is unreliable. In general, though, podcasts would also be unreliable but you seem to think they would generally be reliable. I would also expect AllMusic to be unreliable as this, too, is primarily user-generated. I may be mistaken on this last point, though. --Yamla (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla:, podcasts are mostly unreliable (something I learned from someone reverting one of my edits to the page Misfits (band), where I added an erroneous genre), and AllMusic is considered reliable, considering how many genres are sourced to the website, it’s been agreed though that you can’t use user reviews or the genre sidebar, since both are user-submitted. But if it’s mentioned in the review, that’s considered fine, such as on the page There She Goes Again, where rhythm and blues is traced back to the AllMusic review. So you are partially mistaken, but not entirely. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I do promise to stop genre warring if and/or when I’m unblocked, since I have been taught a great lesson, and I have walked away with much more knowledge about editing genres and reliable sources here than I did prior to my block. And for that, I do want to thank User:Yamla. He/she has been very patient with me, and I thought I would get talk page access revoked, but thank them for listening to me as I try to explain myself. Clearly, I was in the wrong, and I would like another chance. I will stay away from changing/adding genres for 3 to 12 months (the unblocking administrator can be the judge of that, though), but I would like the option to keep editing music articles, since I have been attempting to improve the articles otherwise, by removing unsourced content, and adding sources (outside of the context of adding erroneous genres, that is), and I would like a chance to show that I can stay away from editing genres. If I am unblocked, I plan to continue editing pages related to Stone Temple Pilots and The Velvet Underground, such as by adding sources to non-genre-related content, and refine grammar and sourcing issues. I am happy to know that I am perfectly able to ask for help when I need it, and that people will inform me if I’m doing something wrong, and I will take their warnings/advice to heart. If my unblock is turned down, please explain why, and I will respond accordingly. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You seem to have made a genuine effort to understand what was considered problematic, and appear to be willing to avoid the problems you have made in the past. Since the blocking administrator has also indicated acceptance of an unblock, I shall go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ad Orientem and Yamla: It seems to me that the editor has made a genuine effort to understand what was considered problematic, and appears to be willing to avoid the same problems as she or he made before. Also, checking the recent editing history I don't see anything like the level of really disruptive editing that there was at one time. I am therefore in favour of unblocking. Do either of you wish to comment on this suggestion? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson -No objections. But I will add a word of caution. Given the history of disruption associated with this IP I would advise the user to create an account. Any future disruption linked to this IP address is likely to end with yet another long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: How long would you like my ban from editing genres to last? I'm just curious, in the case that I am unblocked. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to answer that question, because my own view of genres is that exactly how one describes them is of such little importance that I can't imagine why anyone bothers to edit-war over them, or why anyone cares when someone does. However, in order to make it clear, so that you know exactly where you stand, I will say 6 months. I agree with Ad Orientem's advice to create an account. I don't know how long you have been editing from this IP address, but in view of the extensive problems there have been from it in the past, it is very likely that even fairly minor problems may be seen as part of a bigger problem, which may result in your being treated worse than you deserve if some of the problems were not from you but from other people. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing from this IP since late March of 2019, and I would prefer to edit as an IP, but I will stay out of trouble to the best of my abilities. Thank you here. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When names of things contain punctuation

[edit]

Hi. Please refrain from your edits that remove punctuation from articles that contain names of things that contain punctuation. The names stand alone and punctuation shouldn't be treated as if it were that belonging to the text of the article itself. Names that contain punctuation, such as 'Help!' and 'Mars Attacks!' are just names and should not have to constitute the end of a sentence, in the same way as they haven't in this sentence. It's just not a helpful edit and I'm sure there is a myriad of better ways to contribute. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.0.33.169&oldid=1050987334"