User talk:64.98.71.171

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your IP address, 64.98.71.171, is registered to Tucows.com Co. and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Association for Behavior Analysis International, you may be blocked from editing. Whateverusernmae (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Association for Behavior Analysis International. CodeTalker (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2022 (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.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I provided information in my edits; I am removing *inaccurate* information; if you look at the ABAI talk page, it is clear that the person who is pushing the inaccuracies is not willing to abide by straightforward logic (he is insisting editors prove a negative); not to mention the 3 sources they're using are all not reliable sources [3 & 4 are from a self-published blog) and 20 is an opinoin piece on Vox in which the author makes an assertion with no proof); literally, this page has become a conspiracy piece; it is embarassing for wikipedia; reading this piece makes it seem like ABAI and JRC are almost the same organization; in reality - ABAI has no relationship with JRC other than it has allowed them (among 100s of other organizations) to pay for exhibitor space and to submit papers, posters, and panels for review just like it does for 100% of its membership; this idea that someone was a president of one organization decades ago and is now on the board of another means there is some nefarious connection is laughable; leadership in such a small field is bound to overlap64.98.71.171 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Of course you believe your edits are correct. So does everyone engaged in an edit war. Yamla (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2022 (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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as done at Association for Behavior Analysis International.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello; I was providing constructive edits to the page ABAI. I also provided a detailed reason for my prior edits that received a block. The user Binksternet is reverting my sourced edits [and putting back unsourced assertions that are not Neutral POV] because he has an agenda to malign the organization [which is not an encyclopedic approach]. Initially, I assumed good faith, but Blinkerston has provided evidence in his own words that he is there to malign ABAI. He also made 3 reverts within a day [and yet is still provided access to continue to provide biased and unsourced statements. I made multiple comments in the talk page (which were ignored) and then I reached out to on his talk page -- in which he made his bias extremely clear:"but ABAI is truly in bed with the JRC folks who favor treatments using the pain of electric shock." To be as clear as possible; the sources that are currently being used to make inaccurate statements are not quality sources (self-published opinion websites and a book review on Vox); over against peer-reviewed articles. I have asked for 3rd opinions, but received none. I do not want an edit war; I want to either a) remove the article in its entirety, or bring it up to wikipedia standards. An organization with over 30k members is much more than the single controversy that he is so focused on. I have no problem including it in a controvery subsection [where it belongs; if you read the other parts of talk page, that's been the recommendation. Blinksternet simply reverts anything that is not his edits. This is a violation of the principle that nobody owns any article. I request that my block be lifted; and I would love some 3rd opinions to help us reach consensus. AS of now - he is not even replying to points; he's simply reverting whole cloth and writing "whitewash" [not a WP issue; since we are supposed to be objective/neutral]. I stopped reverting anything that had sources [even though I think those sources are bunk] but I did clean up and move things into appropriate sections. I would be happy to engage with a mediator to help us reach consensus. I am surprised that I've been blocked for "edit warring" while he has not even received a warning. Seems disproportionate since he is being tendentious and violated the 3Rs. Please see my detailed reasoning (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International) and his failure to reply to each (and instead his "Why did you misrepresent ABA's continued promotion of JRC? The connection is still very strong despite years of heavy cirticism leveled at ABA"; this is Original Research, as Binksternet is inserting *his* view of ABAI; not pointing to why things are notable and/or verifiable sources that would make the case. If you read through the prior talk paragraphs, that has been his MO - he continues to revert any edits that don't comport to his view and ignores questions/discussions. I would like to arrive at consensus, but cannot when he will not discuss. Help! 64.98.71.171 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; that's the only thing you should discuss in any future unblock request. WP:GAB can give some guidance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 10 August 2022 (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.

@Jpgordon:

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello - I did read the guide for requesting an unblock. It indicated that I should make clear that I do not intend to continue with the edit war [ie back and forth reversions]; So I am committed to that; I want to build consensus; I am also pointing out that I tried to engage in consensus building, and even asked for 3rd opinion. For some reason, the person came and said there are already many people here [there are only 2 in the last year, that I can see: me and Binksternet]. So I would like to a) request an unblock and commit to not reverting. B) I need assistance in this dispute resolution, as the other editor reverted edits I made (I added information and sources) which now leaves an article that does not conform to WP pillar and policies; but when I try to work on it, I can get no discussion on my points and I cannot make additions without being reverted. I don't know what the next step should be. Thank you for your consideration. 64.98.71.171 (talk) 3:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You need to show you understand the steps to take when in a content dispute.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2022 (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.

September 2022

Hello, I'm Safety Cap. I noticed that in this edit to Association for Behavior Analysis International, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Safety Cap (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Association for Behavior Analysis International. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 15:29, 4 September 2022 (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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as done at Association for Behavior Analysis International.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2022 (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 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.