User talk:193.219.28.146

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Yamla 14:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Balance

I intend to add sections to this page concerning the history of this organisation, it's current operations, the view of many observers that it operates as a cult and the reports of former members on the effects on their mental and spiritual health. Any attempt to change this page results in reversion and a claim of vandalism (although I was successful in getting you to remove copyright claims). My aim is a balanced view so to that end I have contacted former members who may also wish to improve the content.

If after the previous edit war you attempt to exert further editorial control I will ask for arbitration. I believe I am working within the policies and the spirit of Wikipedia and I strongly believe that you are not.

I suggest you take the opportunity to discuss.

Regards, Paul

--panpaniscus

[edit] Imbalance in GGWO

After reading through the article, and the links provided, I have reverted the article back to a balanced version. The edits you are inserting make it sound like an advertisement, and do not reflect any critisicism which the church/organisation has received. Please don't remove references to cults, or blindly revert. I've also noted that some comments say that your version 'is the version approved by the GGWO'. The GGWO has absolutely no say in Wikipedia articles. Any further blind reverts will be considered as vandalism. Consider this a first-level warning. Thankyou. HawkerTyphoon 10:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove material detrimental to the GGWO. Thanks. HawkerTyphoon 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove this information contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you will be blocked. Also note that removing messages and warning from yor talk page is considered vandalism. By all means edi the article, but do not remove negative comments about the organisation. HawkerTyphoon 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove content from a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HawkerTyphoon 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Hello, please refrain from edit warring and from making inflammatory edit summaries as you are doing at Holodomor. Wikipedia adheres to a strict NPOV policy. Please discuss on the articles talk page if you disagree. Additionally, please refrain from making prejudicial comments based on the nationality of your fellow editors. Thank you. TheQuandry 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

You have not given adequate reasons as to why the Mozilla Firefox article is POV. Stating that information about one subject is missing does not make the article POV. Please respond to my comments on the page. Also, please read our policies and guidelines on reliable sources and verifiability (linked on the talk page) as these will help clear up some of this.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism on Firefox article

What do you mean by 'here is no real criticism in the article, it is removed in no-time'? There is copious amounts of criticism in the article. Anything that is unsourced, POV, poorly sourced or original research is removed quickly as you will see from the history and the hours of discussion on the talk page. If you believe there are other criticisms that should be added, please do so but ensure you comply with all our policies. Just stating 'we need more criticism' is pointless because unless there are external, reliable, sources making such criticisms it is just a request that will sit there with no end to it. I will remove it as I have not seen any suggestions for criticism being put forward which have been accompanied by reliable sources and written in a NPOV way. Please re-add it if you do think there are criticisms. Just a simple list of them would help - even if you can't find sources, it will help us find sources. Thanks -Localzuk^(talk) 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the privacy policy item is important to include and will look at including it.

However, I think the historic calling of it as 'the best browser' is slightly more important to the article than a security issue from a version long ago as it is indicative of how the product was received by the world whereas a security issue from a long time ago is only a security issue.

The problem on the talk page is that the arguments have become so cyclical and repetitive that it seems we have all lost sight of the purpose of the article.

We now have a section dedicated to google and their relationship, what is missing from it with regards to the anti-phishing feature?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of graphs

Please stop your editing in a disruptive manner. There has been discussion on the issue of the graphs and you are simply now ignoring it in order to push your own POV. The information is being presented, in the cumulative graph, in a sensible way. What is wrong with this?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

I should warn you you're also in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please refrain from edit wars. Could you instead discuss your proposed changes first if you think they may be controversial? Thanks. -- Schapel 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Talk:Ass to mouth. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. =Axlq 19:31, 20 January 2007

Talk page is clean. I only add one little comment. I don't undo other's people edits, they undo mine, which is IMO unjustified. All interested parties should carefully study history of the talk page. 193.219.28.146 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome. If you would prefer to continue along your current path, making non-constructive and trolling comments on talk pages of articles, then you are not welcome, and we can make that official if you'd prefer. If you'd like to read more about Wikipedia's policies, please feel free. Wikipedia is not censored; if you would prefer to frequent a website that is, then I recommend moving along. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment is not trolling. My aim is to make Wikipedia better. That's all. 193.219.28.146 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You have made your third reversion on Talk:Ass to mouth. Be aware that Wikipedia enforces a three revert policy. If you perform one more reversion to that page to add your trolling comments, you will be blocked from futher editing. =Axlq 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Block will be definitely unjustified. People shouldn't remove comments of others on talk page. 193.219.28.146 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are intended only for discussions about improving the article, not about the content of the article. Your comment was unconstructive and inflammatory, it was not about improving the article, therefore it was removed. The article already survived a deletion debate, as indicated by the tag on the top of the talk page. If you want to suggest specific improvements, go ahead, but so far your comments have consisted of inflammatory trolling. You will be blocked if you do that again. -Axlq 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Aim of my comment is enhancing the overall quality of Wikipedia. 193.219.28.146 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not enhancing quality by posting subjective judgments of the article's existence or content. Restrict your comments to improving the article. =Axlq 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You have made your third reversion on Talk:Ass to mouth, too. 193.219.28.146 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So? At least I have ceased, in compliance with policy. You have made your 5th reversion today, so I have little choice but to report you to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Oh well, you were warned. =Axlq 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed that there is ZERO reported cases about 3RR violation in Talk Pages? Do you know why? Because general consensus is to NOT revert other's people comments (with exception of extreme cases, of course, but this is not extreme case). 193.219.28.146 22:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of your comments on the talk page. They are inflammatory and counter-productive. Please take a look at the relevant policies and guidelines with regards to talk page comments.

If you wish to provide valid information to improve the article, please do. Else please stop posting your opinion on the matter.

Also note that you have also broken WP:LEGAL and various other guidelines/policies in your series of posts. Please drop this subject else you will likely be blocked for disruption.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how have I broken WP:LEGAL? 193.219.28.146 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to other guidelines that I've supposedly broken? 193.219.28.146 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah indeed, it was another anon IP. My mistake. I apologise. However, you have now broke WP:3RR regardless of the removal of your comment by 5 editors...-Localzuk^(talk) 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So have you. 193.219.28.146 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake, 3 is max. 193.219.28.146 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that you have now had your comments removed by at least 5 different editors. This shows that your comments are inappropriate.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion the article itself, not the subject of the article. Thanks/wangi 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable: "Don't edit others' comments"

But my little edit on talk page was edited (i.e. removed) all the time. So, I wanted to fix it. And now I am blocked. Really funny. 193.219.28.146 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. If you want to contest your block see Template:Unblock. Thanks/wangi 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I will wait 24 hours and then I will add this one little sentence to talk page again. If you don't like it, feel free to block this IP indefinitely (but consider also collateral damage). 193.219.28.146 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend against doing that, please contribute constructively. /wangi 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I contribute constructively, you can see history of edits from this IP, most are quite constructive. Also, adding this one little sentence on talk page of not so popular article is definitely not disruptive. 193.219.28.146 01:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are posting from an anonymous shared IP address. There isn't any evidence that past constructive edits are yours personally. Your comment about "collateral damage" indicates that others use this IP. If you want to establish a constructive record for yourself, establish an account here. It's free.
  • By your logic, there isn't also evidence that person who writes this sentence and person who was adding this one little sentence on talk page are the same person, is it? 193.219.28.146 01:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Assuming you really want to know: Service providers normally don't reassign a customer IP address during a connection session, so the probability is high that multiple edits in the same day come from the same person. Also, you have acknowledged your edits. Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether you are different people; what matters is that disruptive behavior and a 3RR violation came this IP address in a short period of time. =Axlq 04:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My behaviour is not disruptive. Behaviour of people removing other's people edits on talk page is disruptive. Behaviour of people accusing other people of trolling is disruptive and against assuming good faith. 193.219.28.146 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Continually reinserting a comment that others have removed and asked you not to add is disruptive. That is why you were blocked. Can you tell us how your comment is actually constructive and how it helps build a better encyclopedia?-Localzuk^(talk) 14:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Can you tell me how continuous removal of my little, polite and civil one-sentence edit on article's talk page and blocking this IP is actually constructive and how it helps build a better encyclopedia? 193.219.28.146 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, I can. The addition of such wide ranging 'anti-wikipedia' remarks to a talk page such as this one - which don't actually try and improve the article - starts a precedent. Other editors start to see that it is acceptable to post off topic, personal opinions of the quality of the site without actually providing any info on how to improve it. For example, if the rant about it being against christian values that a prior editor posted had been left there that would have lead to others posting similar things. Holding a 'zero-tolerance' line for off topic comments such as this keeps the project on focus and helps increase the effectiveness of talk pages (an example of this would be the many TV show related talk pages where people just rant and rave about their opinions on that particular show and don't actually try and improve it which leads to other editors ignoring that talk page). Can you see my point?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
              • General consensus is to NOT revert other's people comments (with exception of extreme cases, of course, but this is not extreme case; I am polite, my comment is polite and civil). Doing otherwise is simply censoring. If you don't like what I wrote, feel free to ignore it or comment it (I will NOT revert your comment, even if you say that I am stupid or something; I know what a tolerance is), but please, don't remove it. 193.219.28.146 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                • So, even though I have given a well thought out reason why it is a bad thing to post and encourages others to post off topic, non-constructive edits, you are going to persist? Regardless that 4 editors have now asked you not to and have reverted you? Regardless of the fact that you have been blocked once for disruption over this? You are simply going to violate WP:POINT by continuing with your course of action and will end up blocked again.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's disruptive if you keep doing it. What did you hope to accomplish with that comment? You asked no question, you suggested no improvement. =Axlq 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Just for the record:

00:20, 21 January 2007 Wangi (Talk | contribs) blocked "193.219.28.146 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption)

This "disruption" is adding this sentence to Talk Page of (very encyclopedic) article Ass to mouth:

"Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica)."

What a joke... 193.219.28.146 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment basically highlights your objection to the existence of the article. You kept posting this in spite of the fact that the article's deletion was discussed at length, and the community consensus was to keep it. I even placed an infobox on the talk page to explain this to you, yet you persisted.

I would disagree with you: Articles like this are why Wikipedia is more useful than, say, Britannica. You don't find informative articles on such unpleasant subjects in Britannica. =Axlq 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW - where did I oppose to inclusion of this article? I wanted to add ONLY ONE LITTLE COMMENT ON TALK PAGE. What's wrong with this? Why adding ONLY ONE LITTLE COMMENT ON TALK PAGE is "disruption"? 193.219.28.146 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding it once is not disruptive. Adding it over and over again becomes disruptive. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was adding it, because other editors were removing it without explanation ("trolling" is not explanation). So, I don't think it was disruptive. 193.219.28.146 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How many are there registered users? How many people discussed this article? Don't reply, these are rhetoric questions. 193.219.28.146 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the talk page, it was discussed at deletion review. Axlq is right about Ass to mouth being a legitimate page. You are within your rights to discuss that, and it is rude of other editors to delete your comment without answering it. But it is their right to do so, within 3RR. And you must respect 3RR if you decide to ask the question more than once. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, he didn't ask a question, he just posted an unconstructive comment. And he kept posting it despite editors engaging him here. =Axlq 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that all editors are free to participate in deletion discussions, and an unusually large number participated in this case, as well as in the decision to overturn deletion. If you don't like that consensus, you can improve the article or re-propose the article for deletion. The comment you posted accomplishes neither desired result.

Non-rhetorical question for you: What did you hope to accomplish by posting your comment on the talk page? -Axlq 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of 3RR incident

Here is the controversial statement you kept re-adding to Talk:Ass to mouth:

"Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica)"

Once and for all, please answer these questions:

• Where do you provide any constructive criticism, detailing specific problems with the article?
• How does adding this editorial comment to the talk page result in improvements to the article?
• Why do you think that statement adds value to Wikipedia?
• What reaction did you expect?
• What did you hope to accomplish?
• And finally, what specific suggestion can you offer to improve the article?

These are not rhetorical questions.

If you want the article to disappear in the interest of "improving" Wikipedia, there are procedures for deleting it. It has happened already, but you are free to try it again. However, you need more reason than your personal revulsion to the subject matter. =Axlq 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that my statement is definitely not more controversial than the whole article. So, I am going to post it again. As someone told me, Wikipedia is not censored and removing my little polite and civil comment on talk page could be considered as censoring. I hope you will not do this again. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 193.219.28.146 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you answer the reasonable questions above to explain your actions, you may be reverted again, and if you violate WP:3RR again you will likely banned from editing. All that, just to make a point? See WP:POINT and read it thoroughly; it's another guideline you are about to violate. I have asked several times already: what do you hope to accomplish? Stop avoiding the questions, and discuss. =Axlq 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing all the time, but few persons don't understand that Talk Pages should not be censored. Oh, well... 193.219.28.146 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not "discussing all the time." You are not answering questions posed to you, you have not explained what you want to accomplish. All you have done is continually evade the questions and points others are making, by answering questions with questions and repeating your same tired assertions over and over.

Once again, answer the questions posted above. =Axlq 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who quoted WP:NOT to show that Wikipedia is not censored (which is what you are attempting to do). This applies to articles, not to discussion. I quote the very first 2 sentences from Wikipedia guideline WP:TALK:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

Exactly! You aired your personal view by posting your opinion on the value of Wikipedia. You did not discuss changes to the article. And you are still evading the questions above. Answer them.

Furthermore, did you even read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored? All your discussion above implies that you have not. =Axlq 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are trying to do, and you are not attempting to edit Wikipedia constructively. I encourage you, as I did before this entire situation flared up, to edit constructively, yet you have persisted. I urge you again to reconsider your current path. —bbatsell ¿? 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it very clear, if you make that unconstructive comment on that talk page again then I will block you again. Please contribute constructively. Thanks/wangi 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to drop this issue as it has blown way out of proportion. My only request is that you take notice that talk pages are not for non-constructive comments that don't help improve articles. You can expect to be reverted again if you post the same or very similar comments again as they do not help improve the article. You seem to be refusing to answer the question and seemed to be engaged in some point making exercise. I urge you to reconsider your course of action as your edits would be appreciated if they were done constructively.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My constructive edits to Mozilla Firefox were not appreciated. It's a pity, but oh well, that's life on Wikipedia, I guess... 193.219.28.146 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also made it very clear above. Furthermore, if you block me for more than 24h, I am going to register and make this little polite and civil edit again as registered user. Thank you for your cooperation. 193.219.28.146 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on January 22, 2007 to Talk:Ass to mouth

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "please make an effort to discuss your changes": that's the point -- my little, one-sentence, polite and civil comment on Talk Page is constantly removed. Now, I am going to create a username and add this comment as registered user, so you can accuse me of "block evasion". But evasion of unjust block is not wrong. 193.219.28.146 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. YOU HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IT. The discussion is taking place here. You have not answered one single questions posted above about your "little, one-sentence, polite and civil comment". You have received explanations by several editors why the comment was inappropriate, nonconstructive, and why your activity is disruptive. Now, talk about it here. You can start by answering the questions posted above -- which you have evaded at every opportunity.

I will add that, as a show of good faith, I did not revert you the last time around, but instead posted a response. You can respond here, to the questions above. =Axlq 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(follow-up to my comment) I am not able to create account while block is active. The message is:

"Account creation from this IP address (193.219.28.146) has been temporarily restricted. This is probably due to persistent vandalism (...)"

This is not true. This 3RR violation was not vandalism, it was not disruptive. Behaviour of other editors was disruptive.

So, now I am going to wait for end of blocking period, and then register a user (or few, just in case), add my polite and civil one-sentence comment on Talk Page as IP and then, in case of block of IP, I will log in and add my polite message as registered user. 193.219.28.146 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that such an action would be a violation of WP:POINT. I would suggest that any further action on your behalf, whether through sockpuppets or anonymously will likely lead to further blocks. You have not addressed any of the editors concerns as to how your comment is relevant (regardless of how civil it is) so it will likely continue to be reverted. Also, that message is a standard message that is shown for all blocked IP's when they try and create an account, not specifically tailored for you.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, your reply was fast! I guess I have the honor of being in your watchlist or something...

Yes, I realize that this message is generic and not tailored for me. But it is not true anyway.

BTW - you have stated numerous times, that "Criticisms" section in Mozilla Firefox is "troll magnet". But I guess you think that Ass to mouth article is not "troll magnet"... So, how is this? 193.219.28.146 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your behaviour would come under the definition of trolling but I think that the article has a purpose, as it is a practice that does take place and is in a variety of pornographic films. True it needs some work but slating it generally as being the reason why wikipedia will not be as good as Britannica is pointless to say the least. (oh, and yes - you are in my watchlist).-Localzuk^(talk) 18:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that removing this article will make Wikipedia as good as Britannica. I was adding/will add this sentence:

"Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica)."

Nothing less, nothing more.

Different "definitions of trolling" could be used to suppress uncomfortable opinions. 193.219.28.146 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, different definitions of things just show individuality... You still haven't shown how your comment is constructive you know.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, discussing and seeking approval of adding little and polite sentence on discussion page is ridiculous. 193.219.28.146 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you before - a article talk page is not just a posting board for your personal opinions. It is meant for discussing how to improve the article. Regardless of what you think happened here - your behaviour has been disruptive as multiple editors have asked you not to pose wide ranging opinions which don't actively work to improve the article, so you should respsect the overwhelming consensus that such posts are not acceptable.

And as I said, you still haven't shown how your comment is constructive snd how it might improve the article to be there - compared to the lengthy reasons I have given for it not being there (which seem to have been overlooked by yourself).-Localzuk^(talk) 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again...

Please read WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages. Then explain how your edit complies with that guideline. Your edit is being reverted exactly because you are violating that guideline. =Axlq 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for disruption, again.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated./wangi 14:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, again:

14:37, 26 January 2007 Wangi (Talk | contribs) blocked "193.219.28.146 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (disruption after repeated warnings)

This "disruption" is adding this sentence to Talk Page of (very encyclopedic) article Ass to mouth:

"Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica)."

So, this was:

• NOT vandalism
• NOT spam
• NOT deliberate misinformation
• NOT privacy violations
• NOT personal attack
• NOT repeated, blatant violations of neutral point of view.

Now, I am going to add this short, polite and civil message to Talk Page as registered user (at this moment registering from this IP is not possible, but I've registered before block). 193.219.28.146 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The point is that a whole bunch of editors have asked you not to post this comment, have removed the comment and your action of re-adding it was disruptive.

Also, the talk page guidelines do say that other editors should not edit other people's comments but that does not mean that editors can just post all sorts of irrelevant things on talk pages. Therefore, it comes under keeping these pages on topic. If you want to discuss broad and far reaching comments like this, please do so at the the relevant village pump or on IRC. Just posting it on a random talk page, which is edited by people who actually do want to have such an article, isn't exactly going to make you any friends. So far, across the site as far as I have seen you have rubbed quite a few editors up the wrong way. I would advise you to take a look at some of the better articles on the site and see how people work together. Otherwise I can see you being blocked for good. -Localzuk^(talk) 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"whole bunch of editors"? How many exactly? 5? 6? How many are there registered users now in English Wikipedia? 100 000? 500 000? 1 000 000? More? So, really, I don't buy this "whole bunch of editors"-argument, sorry. My short, polite and civil comment was not "all sorts of irrelevant thing". It is related with this article. It starts with "Articles like this...", you know. 193.219.28.146 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(follow-up to my own comment, just for the record) I am not able to edit from this IP even as registered user. I wonder how long autoblock lasts... 193.219.28.146 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before on this talk page, edit constructively. If you continue to dick around you'll continue to get blocked for longer timespans (be that IP or a registered account). Your comment was neither constructive nor related to the improvement of the article. You are very much welcome to make constructive suggestions, but so far we're still waiting. And as Localzuk said above WP:VP is a more suitable venue for broad questions (but note your comment wasn't a question) than some random fringe article. All you're managing to achieve just now is wasting your own time and that of other editors — what were you trying to achieve? Ta/wangi 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before on this talk page, I edit constructively. And as I've said before, I am going to add my polite, civil and short message on Talk Page again. 193.219.28.146 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I would say around 10 (I'm not gonna count them as my point stands regardless of the exact number). Also, regardless of how many editors there are (anonymous) it stands that around 1000 editors are the main editors of the site (or at least that was the case a year ago).[2] Many of these editors have been long term editors with many thousands of edits under their belts - which kinda indicates that they know how to operate on this site and a few of these are the ones that you have rubbed up the wrong way.

You have just said that your comment started 'articles like this' - like what? How does your comment relate to that article in particular? What exactly do you mean? Otherwise it is completely pointless and counter-productive.

Also, if you do continue you can simply expect to be blocked again, and again until you are indef blocked. Kinda pointless isn't it?-Localzuk^(talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch you don't hurt your head too much on that brick wall! /wangi 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that all you've said about editors reverting my little polite edit on Talk Page was true. But I am not going to prove it now (i.e. check histories for info how many editors were reverting my edit, how many they made edits, quality of those edits, etc.). It is pointless, because you are going to block me anyway.

Also, external source that you gave me is not accesible for me. It requires registration and I am not going to register there. 193.219.28.146 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW - one of the editors who was reverting my polite comment mentioned something about "clearing the backlog". What does it mean? Clearing history of the article/talk page? 193.219.28.146 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia backlog — not all admin tasks, now if you want to help out constructively ;) /wangi 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. My English sucks and that was the reason of my question, I guess... BTW - I make constructive edits, you can check contributions from this IP. But I am going to add my polite message again. I believe people who were reverting it have broken the rules, not me. This subject was discussed above on this talk page. 193.219.28.146 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think you've been ill-treated then stop by WP:AN/I, but repeating the edit will only lead to an escalation of the ban, night/wangi 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated above, I think that evasion of unjust block is not wrong. 193.219.28.146 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that it is not possible to evade this block using registered user account. All edits from this IP are blocked. I will wait... "Patience is a virtue." Note to myself: block will be lifted on Friday, 2nd February, 2007, 14:37 (+1h in my TZ). 193.219.28.146 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At it again

You have been asked by multiple editors, multiple times not to post that comment. You have been blocked 3 times for posting it again and again. The general consensus on this issue is that you should not post it. Can you explain how rv per prior discussion on talk page of this IP is true then? Your behaviour is extremely disruptive now. Please stop. You still have not explained how your comment actually helps improve that article.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely NOT "extremely disruptive". You're exaggerating. I am bored with this discussion... Read my comments above. 193.219.28.146 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read them and I have posted comments - which you have ignored. Your comments have simply been a repetition of a single line of WP:TALK and the fact that you will re-add it. I have given a long explanation as to why such comments are not helpful and it was ignored.

It is extremely disruptive because it ends up with various editors having to look into this instead of actually editing the site, and it leads to WP:AN/I posts which waste more time. Why are you so obsessed with adding the comment?-Localzuk^(talk) 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the talk page with violation of basic Wikipedia rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... 193.219.28.146 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please leave my personal views, regardless of how relevant you think they are, out of this. The issue still remains that you have not explained how you think your comment is helpful. You have not looked at my comments above and you are still responding with the same response regardless of questions or reasoning given to you.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]