User talk:71.77.20.26

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

January 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Momo san Gespräch 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Momusufan, you will be blocked from editing. Momo san Gespräch 04:37, 1 January 2010 (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.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User talk:Momusufan. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Momo san Gespräch 04:38, 1 January 2010 (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 temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Acroterion (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2010 (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.
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).

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

Request reason:

Momusufan (talk · contribs) repeatedly added unsourced information to Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, then made a false report of vandalism when I reverted it.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand why you have been blocked do you? I suggest you read WP:VAN, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL for more information. --FASTILY (TALK) 05:38, 1 January 2010 (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.


Non-admin comment: Please read WP:NOTTHEM, Also Please explain this edit? this was clear vandalism by removing a section without consensus. Block is justified. Momo san Gespräch 04:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is simply my reverting Momusufan (talk · contribs)'s addition of unsourced information. And Momusufan (talk · contribs) is the one who needs to read WP:NOTTHEM, not to mention WP:BITE. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Page histories don't lie. Why are you lying about what you did? Clearly you made the edit and I reverted it one time. Stop making up stories, go watch the ball drop because there isn't more to talk about. Momo san Gespräch 04:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Page histories don't lie. Any reviewing admin should review your edits to see you addition of unsourced information. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REVIEWING ADMIN PLEASE READ[edit]

Now Momusufan (talk · contribs) is being very malicious by requesting that this page be protected so that I cannot express my opinions. It's one thing to make false accusations (as he did), but now he sinks even lower by trying to prevent me from defending myself. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's reverting MY EDITS on this talk page. I think it is now Momusfan who needs to be blocked. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He just did it again. Whether this block is reverted or not, Momusufan is now in serious violation of WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and other policies. I ask that he be warned and then blocked if he continues to revert my comments here. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add insult to injury, he now has falsely accused me at WP:Requests for page protection of making personal attacks against him. I ask any reviewing admin to point out any personal attack (other than defending myself against false accusations) anywhere on this talk page or in my edit history. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly note[edit]

From your edit history, I see that you were making attempts to remove unsourced information from several articles. That in itself is not a problem, but the way you approached it is what got you into trouble. First, if the information has been established in the article for an extended period of time or is likely true but just missing sources, it is better to tag the contested information with a {{citation needed}} tag and take the issue to the discussion pages. If the entire article is missing sources, {{citations needed}} tag may be placed at the top. (This tag was already present in the Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush article.) Removing the information outright is acceptable if the information is verifiably incorrect, or is of an obvious dubious nature. In other cases the WP:BOLD policy permits you to take direct action, but it is usually best to open a discussion on the article's talk page first. Removing content from an article without providing an edit summary that clearly explains your intent is never advised and will almost certainly be reverted by those who recent changes patrollers.

Your second problem was accusing Momusufan (talk · contribs) of having added the unsourced content. The content you deleted had been in the article for an extended period of time. Momusufan had simply reverted your edit because it removed a significant portion of content and did not provide an edit summary to explain the deletion. Reverting such edits is common practice, as is issuing a mild notice to the editor whose content deletion was reverted. Unfortunately, the warning you received was a generic vandalism note rather than the more specific content-deletion note (see {{uw-delete1}}) which would have better explained the situation.

Next, once your changes were reverted, the simply re-deleting the material is not a advisable. Repeatedly doing so is considered edit warring and will almost certainly get you blocked. Once your change is reverted, it is best to take the issues to the article's talk page where you can state your reasons for your proposed change and invite the other editor to respond. This is the third step of the Wikipedia Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle.

At present, another admin has already extended your block to seven days based on a perception of disruptive editing, personal attacks, and inappropriate talk page allegations while blocked. I may not fully agree with the block, but we admins sometimes disagree and are not in the habit of overruling each other. I will however ask the other admin to review your block.

When you regain editing privileges, I think it would be a good idea to (1) drop a note of apology to Momusufan regarding your allegations and (2) open a discussion on the article talk page to state your case as to why you believe the unsourced material should be deleted. You may find that Wikipedia is much more friendly when you open discussions on the talk pages before making potentially controversial edits. Good luck. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I have re-enabled your access to this talk page and invite you to discuss restoring full editing privileges. Please respond here if you are interested. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 17:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand the block and accept it, even though I am not in complete agreement that my editing was disruptive. I would, however, like an explanation of why Momusufan (talk · contribs) is allowed to revert comments on a talk page that are not his own, are not a personal attack, are not a violation of WP:BLP, and are simply another editor expressing his opinion about a content dispute. I get a seven-day block for a content dispute. Momusufan (talk · contribs) doesn't even get a warning for repeated violations of WP:TALK on this talk page. Is it because he is registered and I am not? Is it because he is a self-styled "fighter of vandalism" that he is allowed to violate policy because he thinks he's fighting vandalism? Thanks for welcoming the newcomer, but no thanks. I don't care to participate in such a rough-shod atmosphere. Wikipedia will make it just fine without me, continuing its selective enforcement of rules. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the original blocking administrator, I blocked because you were harassing Momusufan with the templated warning about adding unreferenced material. As was explained farther up the page, he was simply reverting blanking of longstanding content, and there are better ways of dealing with it. I did not block as a result of the content removal; it was your insistence on blaming him for the reversions and the repeated and inappropriate warnings that you insisted on adding - hence the "disruptive editing" rationale. As for the IP vs registered account, registering an account allows us to see the pattern of editing for a unique individual, rather than a generic IP editor. Edit-warring to template an editor who made a good-faith reversion isn't something that will be viewed with favor.
I do encourage you to register an account. There are many editors who ran afoul of the very steep early learning curve that are now productive editors and administrators. Wikipedia is the world's biggest argument factory, and it does take a fairly thick skin to work here, but it can be rewarding once you underrstand the limitations of an anonymous editing environment, and the inherent inability to fully interpret the motives and actions of other editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cleverly avoided my question as to why "Momusufan (talk · contribs) doesn't even get a warning for repeated violations of WP:TALK on this talk page", quite obviously because you did not bother to look at the entire history of his editing in this situation before delivering a seven-day block against me but not even a word to him. You were even his accomplice in silencing me on this talk page so that I could not defend myself, until a more sensible and less impulsive admin decided to point out your impulsive actions. Once again, good job welcoming the newcomer. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift[edit]

Go to the George Strait page. Go to the Carrie Underwood page. Go to the Sugarland page. Go to the Lady Antebellum page. Do I need to continue? It is clearly a common part of lead sections. And not only that, you are clearly the only user deleting it.

And it is not against policy, that is a complete lie, as it is on the pages of MULTIPLE Grammy winners, as I have shown you above.

Become an actual registered user, and then I might take you a little more seriously.--Emgee1129 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Block Me[edit]

Oh, no. Please don't play 'big brother.' Please don't say that you're 'watching me.' Please don't report me. I can't be blocked from Wikipedia. My life will be so empty. And on top of that, I won't even be able to start a new account. My life will be empty if I'm not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Please...don't block me, don't report me. I'm begging. Please. PLEASE. PLEASE! PLEASE!!--Emgee1129 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said, please don't block me[edit]

Like I said, please. Don't block me. Don't report me. My life, my whole existence is dependent on being allowed to edit wikipedia. I'll never be able to live with out it. PLEASE! I'm begging. Don't block me!! PLEASE!!--Emgee1129 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, seriously, what is your issue? You seem to be obsessed with me. I stopped adding it because I don't feel like getting into an editing war. GET...OVER...YOURSELF! Despite what you think, you are not special.--Emgee1129 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Taylor Swift —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgee1129 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Boring[edit]

Well, you're kind of boring me now.

--Emgee1129 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You're pretty slow[edit]

You're pretty slow on the uptake.

Maybe you should check out this link.--Emgee1129 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You're a tool[edit]

You're a toolbag, actually


Keats page edit[edit]

You reverted an edit and wrote of a colouration to a poem background: "One poem does not need to be emphasized this way. It's one of many beautiful Keats poems. Overemphasizing it is very POV. Get consensus before rv."

I thank you for your interest in the Keats page. I have been working over the last year to build the page's sourcing, referenced biographical material and images. I am continuing to add content over the next six months. I would suggest that if you have strong issue with such an edit as the colour of a box, and feel it "very POV", that you might enter it on the article discussion page. We could then "get consensus" on appropriate action.

You'll notice that Bright star is the only poem quoted in its entirety in the article. This is because it is a sonnet (a short 14 lines), it is well known, it has demonstrable links through Keats's letters to Isabella Jones and Fanny Brawne and was one of the last poems that Keats revised before he died. This is why it is emphasised as an image as much as a poem. If you feel moved to discuss this further on the article talk page I am happy to do so. By the end of February 15 2010, if not, I will add colouration to the image.

Spanglej (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you think you know all the guidelines and regulations, try the one at WP:DTTR. Do not ever leave a template on my talk page. In fact, the only valid source on that page regarding Turner's ethnic background states she has native american ancestry. The "source" given that says she does not in fact does not support that statement. Please be mindful how you throw around templates in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, dude, don't template the regulars. The edit summary you claim is a personal attack against you was not regarding any edit you made to my talk page, however, since you can't resist to plaster inappropriate templates on my talk page, do not post to it again. Leaving inappropriate templates is akin to vandalism and if you post another template to my talk page, I will report you to WP:AIV. Get a grip, start thinking and stop throwing around inappropriate and invalid templates. That is more than a suggestion. Further templates will be reported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Please go to my userpage and choose the "Email this user" link on the left side of the page so I may communicate with you off-WP. It's concerning pertinent information you may be interested in regarding a current issue you are involved with. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.77.20.26&oldid=1138946205"