User talk:31.209.16.177

July 2013

Hello, I'm VQuakr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:VQuakr that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Then dont remove my posts for no reason! its just that simple! censorship should never be tolerated 31.209.16.177 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 31.209.16.177. You have new messages at VQuakr's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Civility

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where is the attack?! TELL ME! - if you gonna accuse me you better bring up or shutup! and btw tell someone who care because i dont, i have no tolerance for a person without knowledge who interfering in the subject, i have better things to do than to explain for the person every single test they did in the mythbusters moon hoax episode 31.209.16.177 (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. INeverCry 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ATTACK? i demanded answers since i was accused for making "disruptive editing" 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I warned you for calling other editors propagandists (this edit.) Asking for answers and reasons is perfectly fine. Asking for references to be verified, reliable sources etc is completely acceptible. Calling others propagandists because they don't see your perspective isn't. Canterbury Tail talk 16:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down

Hi there 31, I noticed you were having trouble getting your points across at Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. I believe some of your points may be valid, but I think you're going to have a very hard time convincing other people of your position if you keep calling them liars and propagandists and accusing them of censorship. I think this was the reason some of your posts were removed--people don't like being called names. I think you would have a lot more success if you were to calmly explain your views and back it up with some links to sources that back up your position--just trying to explain why a source is wrong probably won't be good enough. I think you have the potential to become a great editor for Wikipedia, you just need to tone it down a couple of notches :-) Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 19:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who is a victim of censorship will have trouble getting their points across... 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the type of behavior I'm referring to... I don't think they're censoring you, they just don't like being called names. Instead of acting like a victim, try to work with them in a more respectful way. Mildly Mad^T_C 19:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whats your problem?! you think they're not censoring me... IKNOW they do. Im done with "good faith" towards these trolls 31.209.16.177 (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning for personal attacks. Make one more attack against people on Wikipedia and you will be blocked. This includes calling them trolls, accusing groups of censorship, claiming people are promoting propaganda or telling lies. I'm trying to assist you here but you're not helping your case. If you calm down, speak plainly, stop accusing people of things and provide references to back up your claims I promise you you will be heard. I know some aren't willing to do so, and I have warned them for not assuming goo faith, but I promise you will be heard if you approach it in a less confrontational manner. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt care less what you say, fuck off from my talk page 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowing others good faith and telling them to "fuck off" is a surefire way to get banned, regardless of your views. If you want to have any chance of editing Wikipedia in the future, you need to stop that. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then dont come here if you dont like it?! 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help you out with some friendly suggestions. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article suggestion will not be accepted because of this policy--we do not have separate pages to represent separate points of view on a subject. Instead, we work in a civil manner to build consensus on single articles about subjects. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 15:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You are hereby blocked for a period of 1 month for gross incivility, personal attacks, disruptive editing, I Didn't Hear That, and lack of good faith. Such behaviour will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Note this block has zero to do with your views on the moon landing, and attaching such behaviour to your views is actually increasing the chance that your voice will not be heard. It does not help the points you are trying to make when you attack other editors. Due to the behaviour I have no choice but to block you. I'm sure you'll claim this is censorship or some such, though it is not. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give up? YOU STALKING ME, YOU CENSORING ME. Admins like you should never be respected! As usually everything i say is a personal attack according to you. I cant even have a on-going debate because you will put everything i say under "personal attacks"! - that alone proves CENSORSHIP. If i busted one of your sources for being misleading propaganda then i cannot say that because the word "propaganda" is PERSONAL ATTACKS(!?) If i busted one of the articles most cited person in a lie (which i did) thats a PERSONAL ATTACK(!?) if i tell that is so? your pathetic beyond words. You lost the debate as usually and the only thing you have left is to censoring me 31.209.16.177 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

Different rules for different people 31.209.16.177 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:24, 21 July 2013 (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.

Im blocked for calling ppl on the "other side" for the opposite word of "conspiracy theorist": "propagandists". Conspiracy theorists is a word frequency used and accepted but i guess the admins do not threat everyone in the same way or they just want to have a excuse to remove posts and block editors. Everytime i discovered that some of the sources in the moon hoax article is using misleading propaganda im not even allowed to say it without actions is taken to me - thats IS censorship and it should not be accepted.

School kids debate level

Here it is how it went down, i caught one of the ppl behind one of their sources in a lie (which i wasnt allowed to point out...)

:

It has been up before but here it is again, Phil Plait claimed in a radio program with Joe Rogan that ALL shuttle astronauts who has ever gone into space has been through the van allen belts, at 6 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDSnIc

If thats not misleading propaganda i dunno what is... his website should be removed as a source 31.209.16.177 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For your information, Plait is talking about the South Atlantic Anomaly. And he didn't know offhand how high the Hubble Space Telescope orbits - it is 559 km. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference that says they haven't all been through the VAB? Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is beyond pathetic! (and what wikipedia has become) PHIL PLAIT is the one making the claim and you asking ME to prove that the shuttle astronauts DIDNT GO THROUGH the van allen belts?! OMG 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and now it's time for you to put up or shut up.--McSly (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor is not here to make a genuine improvement to the encyclopaedia, they have been blocked for gross incivility, personal attacks, lack of good faith and disruptive editing which doesn't help their case. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

/----

To remove a dishonesty source IS way of "improvement to the encyclopaedia" but the best excuse they could come up with was to make ME prove that all shuttle astronauts HAVENT gone throught the van allen belts?! jeeees its a well known concept that the ones claiming something is the ones need to prove it!! and in this case its a well known fact that the shuttle astronauts DID NOT go into the van allen belts, ASK NASA. READ THE FLIGHT RECORDS! Is this on a school debate level?! One can only laugh at what wikipedia has become... 31.209.16.177 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Im blocked for calling ppl on the "other side" for the opposite word of "conspiracy theorist": "propagandists". Conspiracy theorists is a word frequency used and accepted but i guess the admins do not threat everyone in the same way or they just want to have a excuse to remove posts and block editors. Everytime i discovered that some of the sources in the moon hoax article is using misleading propaganda im not even allowed to say it without actions is taken to me - thats IS censorship and it should not be accepted. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can take your pick which of the following two reasons you think is the reason for declining this unblock request. (1) Because it does not address the reason for the block, which was not for, as you put it, 'calling ppl on the "other side" for the opposite word of "conspiracy theorist": "propagandists"', but for persistent disruptive editing of various kinds. (2) Because I am part of the great evil conspiracy of Wikipedia administrators who do everything we can to stop anyone who tries to tell the truth, for no better reason than that we hate the truth, and, to make things even worse, we accuse people who say there are such conspiracies of being "conspiracy theorists". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

How did i NOT address the problem when i just told that im blocked for have busted some of their used sources for using misleading propaganda, which i already pointed out earlier and also proved. "disruptive editing of various kinds" is just an excuse. NAME ONE disruptive editing! 1. understand what you have been blocked for = Im blocked for no reason. 2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption = I never did. 3. and will make useful contributions instead = I tried to, but got censored. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem oblivious to your disruptive editing and behavior. This is disruptive. You failed to own up to your attacks and have been mostly heat where we need light. Your denials disguised as block appeals are wasting editors' time so we will let this block ride out for the time with talk page access revoked.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2013 (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.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. 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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.