User talk:90.207.105.117

AN/I

Hi, because of the personal attack in your edit summary I have opened a thread at AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Difficult_IP_editor_back --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out

I understand why you might have such strong views on Mo Johnston. But two established editors have reverted your changes, and because you reverted my factually accurate edit that is sourced in the article, I am about to become the third. The fact that multiple editors disagree with you does not necessarily mean that we are right and you are wrong. It does mean that the onus is on you to come to the talk page and explain why you are right.

I'm going to restore my edit. Should you disagree, I urge you to take the option of opening discussion on the talk page, and editing collabouratively. Regards, --W F C-- 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I still think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on the talk page though. Making a case for your edits (for instance, explaining how reverting you is in violation of WP:BLP) would help prove that you are not intentionally being disruptive. Regards, --W F C-- 20:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hammell

I left the expansion you made in - but it feels very WP:UNDUE to me considering the rest of the content. O. J. Simpson is a poor example; the trial was an international media event and strongly notable. There is also no way that it's inclusion in Wikipedia could in any way impinge on his character - it is wide knowledge. Generally speaking we err on the side of caution for lesser known or less notable events. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I noticed this comment just added - in future it would be better to add comments to currently open threads or my talk page because people don't often check the archive. Anyway; I am sorry but I have opened plenty of talk page discussions and the style of your additions simply have not changed. While you seem to have made some other great edits a lot of your additions contain dubious material, undue content, NPOV or other problematic wording, interpretation of sources, word replacement. Your also consistently adding a lot of negative material about people. The reason I am now taking it straight to the BLP/N is because I feel talk pages are not working with you and it is better to attract other editors who might be able to give a different perspective. I'm afraid I still maintain that that specific sentence was written to attack the subject - it is very clear that it was; I'm sure it was done in good faith, but the skew is unmistakable. I've tried to be patient with you and helpful where possible - but it feels like running into a brick wall over and over. I'm at the limit of my patience; if you will not read policy and gen up on how we write BLP articles here I cannot help you any further. As a final note insults don't worry me in the slightest :) but it is against wikipedia policy to directly attack editors while in disputes (see WP:NPA) so I'd ask you to stop that please. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Hi, you appear to be getting reverted a lot at multiple locations and with multiple IP addresses, as a new users bumping up against these issues have you considered WP:ADOPTION as this helps users to get to grips with our policies and guidelines. Please stop edit warring poor quality additions and attack type content into articles, use discussion and consider reading some of our policies and guidelines. Disruptive editing at multiple articles could result in your editing privileges being restricted. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also as this is a repeat situation at multiple IP address, please consider getting an account so as to keep your edit history in one location, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My additions are neither attack content, poor quality or disruptive. I have familiarised myself with policy and availed myself of the talk pages in every appropriate case. I have also decided to contribute via IP for now, as is my right. Please do not deliberately misrepresent my intentions or actions here on the project.

Having glanced through your own contributions, Off2riorob, I would suggest you are generally in some doubt about the fundamental difference between a biographer and a PR person. On previous experience you also appear to communicate primarily via the 'angry rant'. Please note I have no interest in this so, please, consider taking your advice and dire warnings of 'restrictions' elsewhere. Good day to you 90.207.105.117 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John F. McClelland

Please use discussion and stop reverting, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing archived content

I have reverted your additions to this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629 , please do not edit the archives, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:John F. McClelland. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Beeshoney (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

José Fortes Rodríguez, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Chzz ► 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thing of beauty. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please SEE HERE

Sorry, I put this comment in the wrong section of my Talk page. If you have a look at some of the edits from a certain IP address in my Talk page's "History", you'll know what I mean.Beeshoney (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I am terribly sorry about this - there has been some confusion. What happened is this:

I made a mistake by undoing one of your edits (your edit was fine)
You notified me of the problem on my Talk page
I corrected the problem by re-inserting your edit and apologising
Then some other person from a different IP address starting inserting rude comments into the section you had created on my Talk page
I mistakenly thought that this person had also inserted the text you previously had inserted (I know it's a short time but I am very busy on Wikipedia)
Therefore I put my response into your section

Once again I am very sorry about this, and I hope you accept my apology. Please continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia. Thanks.Beeshoney (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to The Best (song). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Donald Duck (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is disruptive because it removed sourced material from an article, and because the material is related to the subject of the article (the song). —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Best (song). Note that the three-revert rule 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 three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was three reversions and then a completely different edit. Non of which were remotely close to being vandalism. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Because none of the edits were reverts of vandalism, the three revert maximum is in full effect—or rather, the exception to the three-revert rule for cleaning up vandalism is not a factor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you concede that the warning for vandalism was in error? Please remove the template from my talk page without delay, thanks. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Because of your disruptive edits this evening and the fact that uninvolved individuals have also reverted your additions and warned you for it I have reported things to the edit warring noticeboard. I feel an uninvolved admin will be able to judge this much better & I no longer have time to keep explaining stuff to you. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 72 Hours, for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I take full responsibility for breaching 3rr, apologise unreservedly to the community and will certainly not do so again in future. However, I feel the length of this block is disproportionate for a first offence. It followed minutes after my first and only warning, after which I had committed no further breaches. Additionally, only three of the edits were technically reversions, the fourth was completely different.

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked specifically for violating WP:3RR, you were blocked for edit warring across several articles over a period of several days. Whether they were technically reversions or whether you technically broke 3rr is irrelevant wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 6 August 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.

I agree, since you have apologised, and have said you will not do it again. Unfortunately, I can't do anything as I am not an administrator. You will have to wait for an admin to deal with your request on this page. Beeshoney (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting you have had formal level three warnings before, this one and this one. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a clarification you were blocked for long term editwarring, I didn't see you breach 3RR (I did check) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that you simply wait out the block. You can post another unblock request, but I don't think it would be a good idea in this case. Remember, you're welcome to resume editing once the block expires (of course, only if you abide by the rules), and there are only another 2 days of the block left. Beeshoney (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see you are now blocked. I hope you will now reconsider my comments about WP:ADOPTION . Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note my IP address has now changed but I abide by the terms of this block 90.200.240.178 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.