User talk:70.19.122.39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:TfD. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (70.19.122.39) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!  pablo 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Paperback. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
is this a joke? you reverted perfectly good edits that crosslinked other wikipedia pages to a page section. this first time i will put this down to ignorance. if you don't know what {{anchor}}s do and how they should be deployed you should not revert ANYTHING. this is basic. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shared sense of exasperation[edit]

Looks like you're having much the same problem I ran into recently. See [1] EEng (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Horus Heresy (novels). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SudoGhost 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
you are being uncivil. my "edit warring" is restoring legitimate content following disruptive, unwarranted removal. this does NOT qualify under 3RR. if you think it does, by all means report me. if you insist, i have no option but reporting you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) A warning that your behavior is inappropriate is not uncivil. (2) Please see WP:Disruptive editing before inaccurately using that descriptor, as making accusations of disruptive editing where there is none can be construed as a personal attack, and (3) you are mistaken if you believe that your edits do not fall under WP:3RR; believing you are correct is not a valid reason to continue edit warring. If you have any doubts about anything I just said, you are more than welcome to ask any administrator, but they are going to tell you the same thing I just did. - SudoGhost 04:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - SudoGhost 01:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Horus Heresy (novels)[edit]

See the talk page discussion concerning the use of hidden text in the article. If you want to restore it, discuss it and get a consensus for your edit, but restoring the hidden text isn't going to accomplish anything; it will be removed until there is consensus to include it. - SudoGhost 23:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i did discuss it before, back when you had some more extra time to drop in and disrupt the article. the text is justified as a service to other editors. i don't need "consensus" to make the article easier to edit for any good faith users. anything else? 70.19.122.39 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text is not "justified", it's actually exactly the type of hidden text that is not permitted in articles, so yes, you do need a consensus to insert it. - SudoGhost 23:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok so we disagree...because you are being disruptive and unreasonable. and? 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See below. - SudoGhost 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Horus Heresy (novels) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SudoGhost 23:51, 15 May 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 are mistaken. i'm not involved in an "edit war". i restored pertinent information that you unjustifiably blanked, from the article itself, and from the source text (edit window). disruptive actions hardly constitute edits. anything else? 70.19.122.39 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your assessment is inaccurate. Please see WP:EW and the article's talk page, as well as WP:DE for further information regarding the definition of "disruptive" on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
funny, i think yours is the innacurate assessment. i guess this is a conundrum. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. See below. - SudoGhost 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - SudoGhost 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing, as you did at Horus Heresy (novels). 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 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 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).

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

Request reason:

the rationale given by the blocking admin is vague: relevant diff. i simply do not know why my edits were "unconstructive" or "disruptive" (the reason i was singled out for the block). i asked through another ip address (User:65.88.88.127) for clarification and i was blocked by the same admin for "block evasion". so i have no idea which edits of mine were serious enough to be called vandalism: "@SudoGhost, I understand why you reverted so many times, but your only policy-based exemption is vandalism." comment by the blocking admin taken from the posted diff. thank you.

Decline reason:

Per diffs below. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 17 May 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 made many edits like this one. Earlier ones were even worse. In my view, they were clearly disruptive, and if one of them did not constitute vandalism, their repetition did.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are joking, right? in this one User:SudoGhost removed a whole section (15kb) that is pertinent to the article, and is crosslinked in several places, with a flimsy and erroneous explanation. i reverted it as is my right, reinserting the information. User:SudoGhost did not seek a disussion for this revert, per WP:BRD. and my action is disruptive? ditto the next diff that you claim is disruptive. in this case too, User:SudoGhost removed hidden text s/he disputed. i reinserted the text, because i disagreed with her/his opinion. there was already a discussion between us in the talk page about it, and we just would not agree. i asked her/him several weeks ago to seek a 3rd opinion about it, mindful that per guidelines the article's main contributor (that's me) should be consulted and kept in the loop. s/he did not ask for arbitration. previously, s/he had said that the hidden text should be replaced with an {{edit notice}}, to which i agreed. then s/he changed his mind. so after all this, s/he again removed the information which i reinserted. and this is vandalism? 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 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).

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

Request reason:

see my reply above. as can be seen, the blocking admin simply has no case per the diffs s/he posted. Daniel Case just put a rubber stamp on it. this is not a serious attitude. i ask that the unjustified block be removed, and an appropriate log entry to that effect be entered in this ip's block log. thank you.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has very specific rules regarding edit warring and the three revert rule. As the block log indicates, the combative nature of the edits was the cause of the block, not their content. - Vianello (Talk) 19:35, 17 May 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 do not have the "right" to edit war, just as you do not have the right to exhibit ownership over an article. You were blocked for violating 3RR, and an unblock request shifting the focus on the blocking admin isn't going to get you unblocked since "the blocking admin has no case" is inaccurate. - SudoGhost 16:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
edit: reply to Vianello: please be serious. what is a "combative nature of ... edits"? i am sure you have a ready example of me assuming such a tone as it applies to the reason for this block. i'd love to see that example. well, let's see the ways i may be guilty of everything: User:SudoGhost removes info from an article (Horus Heresy (novels)) i have heavily contributed to. i revert. a discussion ensues at Talk:Horus Heresy (novels). i try to answer all of User:SudoGhost's concerns, and make several changes in the style and content of the article to that effect. the rest we simply do not agree on. i ask him to get a 3rd opinion if s/he still believes i am in the wrong. s/he doesn't; instead returns some time later with the same claims, and proceeds to remove the information s/he disputes. i revert those edits with detailed reasoning (either previously stated at the talk page, or newer). even though i explain that imo he removes pertinent, helpful information from a well-read article, with explanations that are flimsy, inaccurate, or frivolous, i do not take any admin-related measures; i do not warn; i do not accuse anyone of WP:VANDTYPES: Blanking, illegitimate (a potential 3RR exception). i do not do this even though the removals are several kilobytes worth, and some do away with whole article sections. i'd like to defuse this other ways, say with a neutral opinion. mainly because i am concerned with providing good content to readers and not wasting time with bureaucratic procedure, squabbling with error-prone administrators. case in point the blocking admin (Bbb23): first he justifies the block by in effect calling me a vandal. then he inappropriately reviews my unblock request (the nominal reviewing admin, Daniel Case was a non-entity. all he did was defer to Bbb23). Bbb23 states that i am not really a vandal per se, i surreptitiously became one because my edits are so disruptive. the proof he brings is no proof at all, and i point it out. following that, your non-answer brings it full circle, by pointing to the block log: my original question exactly requested clarification of the block log language/rationale. funny. and now we come to my "combative nature of the edits". i can't wait to read what this might be. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a moot point now, but I feel compelled to reply when addressed on administrative matters: Were I speaking about "tone" or "vandalism" you would have a point. Unfortunately, you are still dwelling on the content of your edits, which as I just explained, is not the issue. Edit warring and 3RR are not about tone, or the manner in which the edits are made, which invalidates your point. Further, as you have yourself characterized this as a dispute and not an intentional act of vandalism on the other party's part, 3RR exemption plays no role. - Vianello (Talk) 15:17, 19 May 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).

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

Request reason:

per my comment above. neither the blocking admin nor the reviewing admins are able to state in clear, unambiguous language the reason for this block: the reasoning they use subtly shifts with each question or unblock request. i consider this my 2nd unblock request, as the first one was in effect inappropriately reviewed by the blocking admin (the nominal reviewing admin, Daniel Case also inappropriately imo, deferred to him. there is no evidence Daniel Case actually looked at the block particulars). edit: please make a pertinent correctional entry in this ip's block log, if in agreement. thank you

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, blocked expired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 18 May 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.

there is still the issue of an unexplained, vague block entry remaining in the log. i will ask at ANI/3RR. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact look at those diffs. I strongly suggest to any reviewing admin that, in addition to declining this unblock, we extend the block further and revoke talk page access, because you ran out of arguments long before we ran out of patience, and now we're all just wasting each other's time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point now, since the block appears to have expired. - SudoGhost 02:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC
I'm sure he'll get blocked again at this rate. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to be under WP:ROPE yourself. and you are also uncivil. if you did in fact look at those diffs, point out where my disruption/vandalism occured. i agree that this whole exercise was a waste of my time, and it came to nothing. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued warring at Horus Heresy (novels)[edit]

Hello 70.19.122.39. You have now gone back and restored your own preferred version of the article, in spite of all the efforts to persuade you to follow policy. You have restored over 16,000 bytes of controversial material. These edits appear to have zero support from others. Please consider an immediate self-revert of your last change. If you don't do so, I suspect that the next passing admin will go ahead and block you for a much longer time. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i did not restore my "preferred version". i reverted with cause a number of less than helpful edits as any editor can. the reasoning is given at Talk: Horus Heresy (novels)#rev516. by all means offer your comment there instead of warning me here. secondly exactly which policy did i not follow? i've been asking this for some time. is it the policy that says i should not engage in reverting no matter what? please refrain from implied threats: you are a "passing admin". if you feel that i must be blocked for "a much longer time", state your case clearly, and do what you think needs to be done. naming this section "continued warring" is prejudicial and unhelpful. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for resumption of edit warring and disruptive editing, as you did at Horus Heresy (novels). 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 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.
  • Warning. Even the slightest bit of disruption on your talk page during this block will result in revocation of talk page access. That includes anything remotely related to your previous comments, attacks, etc. You're lucky the block is only a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i will not bother. but no hard feelings, it's not a big deal. i simply believe you, and the block reviewers, were out of your depth in this one. consider my block permanent. cheers! 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm 70.19.122.39. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Horus Heresy (novels) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note also section reasoning for reverting edits of 2013/05/16 in that article's talk page. Thank you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are blocked, this is kind of redundant but, all I did was remove a comment from the section header. Section headers shouldn't contain comments. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Horus Heresy (fictional event) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Horus Heresy (fictional event), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy (fictional event) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.19.122.39&oldid=1144419003"