| Revision as of 08:07, 16 September 2009 editKilliondude (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,867 editsm Removed category Temporary Wikipedian userpages (using HotCat)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:45, 1 September 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| {{sharedip|Applied Research Associates}} | |||
| {{older}} | |||
| ==3RR warning== | |||
| Please be aware of the ] policy. You will be blocked if you continue to revert against consensus. <b>] ]</b> 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's news to me that "edits against consensus" are covered. (I was about to protest on that basis.) -] (]) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are dangerously close to running afoul of 3RR, yet again. I strongly advise you to stop. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not my intention to revert a consensus (as I see, now, that is against 3RR) but to help build a new one. -] (]) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2009 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The <span class="plainlinks"></span> you made to the page ] has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the ] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative ]. You may also wish to read the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-huggle1 --> ]]] 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Corrected (moving too fast) -] (]) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''"Teabagger" is being used as a pejorative, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Do not attempt to include it again. Both that page and its companion page ahve been nominated for semi-protection against editing, which precludes edits by anonymous users.] (]) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)'' ] (]) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *It's not pejorative since used self-referentially. It's just like "]" in perhaps originally being intended that way but so widely used as to ignore, and lose in its wide usage, any of that. -] (]) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{#if:abusing ] to evade ] restrictions, harrass other editors, and general edit warring and other disruptive editing|'''abusing ] to evade ] restrictions, harrass other editors, and general edit warring and other disruptive editing'''|repeated ]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 --> ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I stopped before invoking the 3RR.|decline=Clear evidence of ], including 5 uses of the revert or undo function between 16:35 and 17:40 today; as well as the disruptive mischaractarization of the good-faith edits of other users as "vandalism", calling other editors "vandal" in edit summaries does not indicate a desire to work things out on talk pages. No indication that you intend to stop editing the article in question until after disputes are resolved on the talk page, so I see no reason to unblock you. ]''''']''''' 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :To the reviewing administrator, please see identical reversions by ] and ], which all resolve to the same geographical location and are very evidently the same person. This problem extends beyond 3RR to general tendentious editing and harrassing of other editors, accusing them of vandalism for reverting his edits, and so on. These multiple IPs are being used to evade policies, and the block log indicates that this is not the first time. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To the reviewing administrator, please note that I have access to only one PC at a time and make conscious efforts not to go against the 3RR, now including going against a clear consensus (which I did not know before). is an example where I stopped today, for that reason, to try to involve Admins in reviewing disruptive edits on US healthcare-related pages. -] (]) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Additionally, reviewing the history of this talk page and of the contributions of this IP address, it seems clear that it is being operated by the same person as the ] account. --]''''']''''' 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...but not to go against the 3RR, or any other policy, see "Here" above. -] (]) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am curious as to how you believe , , , , , , and , all within 24 hours, do not violate 3RR or any of the other policies mentioned in your block notice? ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see the first 3 alone violate 3RR; which was not my intention as I was making many edits in several articles, at once. Getting worried about that led me to stop and call for help ("Here" above.) Per "guide to appealing blocks", I request "duration of the block ... be reduced" and Admin review of other editors' uses of "vandal" which weren't penalized (I documented my edits, that they questioned, with relevant links to similar uses, and they did not document their reversions). By such documentation (and intending to avoid 3RR), I "desire to work things out" but they (one in particular) did not, simply reverting my edits as "vandalism" (Why OK for him?). I "intend to stop editing the article in question (w.r.t. to the use of, what I contend is the now, more general meaning of ]) until after disputes are resolved." -] (]) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You used the revert feature more than 8 times in 24 hours, a gross violation of 3RR. You did so with multiple IP addresses, a violation of ] - this account has been blocked multiple times in the past for violating this policy alone. In the above revert-spree you managed to accuse 3 different established editors of vandalism/being vandals (going so far as to report one of them for vandalism), managed to otherwise insult them, and have otherwise demonstrated extremely disruptive editing behavior. I for one have no interest in modifying your block, you may try requesting an unblock agian with the {{tl|unblock}} template otherwise. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] followed me but isn't me. "Vandal" appeared first from other editors, not me. I only used it, appropriately it seemed to me, when reverted for no cause, while showing cause on my part. is a reversion by one of your "established editors" pretending it's something else ("wikify, fix typo"). I offered to cool it; your position seems grossly unfair. -] (]) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Given ]'s interest in precisely the same articles as yourself, similar editing styles (down to making ''exactly'' the same revisions), and the fact that ''both'' IPs resolve to Applied Research Associates, I find the claim that ] is a different person to be ''extraordinarily unlikely''. Again, if you want a second opinion request another unblock, but I won't do it. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Editors in agreement often have similar arguments and identical revisions. -] (]) 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:45, 1 September 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.