User talk:147.202.23.71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Temple garment, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Gwernol 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Muhammad/images appear to be intentionally inflammatory. Please cut it out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if that appears the case. I am merely returning the comments in kind. I find nothing I say any more inflammatory than the opposing viewpoint. The most inflammatory thing on the whole page is the attempt to force silly muslim customs on the rest of the world.
Again, please stop. I will simply issue you a temporary block on editing if you don't. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Back off man! You might want to wait a sec between warnings and threats! You posted 2 warnings back to back without me having the time to post anywhere between them and still read the first one. 147.202.23.71 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Calling a religion silly and its beliefs stupid inflammatory. Grouping all members of a religion together with a bunch of extremists is inflammatory. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Mod is over stepping his bounds and blocking me for trying to contribute to a discussion, and is going so far as to reverting my comments on my talk page in defense of my posts."

Decline reason: "Your comments are clearly inflammatory and you were warned not to continue posting those remarks. "The other remarks are just as bad" is not an excuse. Just because someone else breaks the rules does not give you license to. You are not permitted to remove active block notices from your talk page. If you continue to do this the page will be protected for the duration of your block to prevent abuse from you. Gwernol 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Take a look at the time stamps. I was not given an opportunity to stop. The initial warning came at the same time as my second post -- the one that got me blocked. I was actually reviewing the first warning and TRYING to reply when I got blocked, and my replies kept getting interrupted. I think the block is unreasonable, especially given the insufficient warning. 147.202.23.71 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your last edit here was at 2:04, four minutes after you were warned and two minutes after you replied to that warning. Gwernol 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are allowed a certain numbers of reverts per article per day to revert and remove vandalism. Does this not apply to talk pages as well? particularily when one user is removing comments they disagree with? 147.202.23.71 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Take a look at the first two "warnings" too.

This does not apply to vandalism, nor did I exceed the number. Not sure what your latter comment is attempting to point out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If it does not apply to vandalism, I should be allowed to revert your vandalism indefinably, without a block. I am trying to point out that I got blocked for removing YOUR vandalism. 147.202.23.71 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Consumed Crustacean's edits were clearly not vandalism. Please stop trying to squirm out of a valid block. Please come back in 24 hours when your block lifts and make constructive contributions to Wikipedia articles. Continued deliberate antagonism of other editors or point of view pushing by you are likely to result in a much longer block. Thanks, Gwernol 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
How is removing legitimate comments that were not out of line with the rest of the comments on the page NOT vandalism? I am seriously perplexed as to how you feel I am out of line, and none of the other editors (including the vandal I reverted) were. 147.202.23.71 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That article has been afflicted by editors inflaming arguments. Your edits were the perfect example of comments that added nothing to the discussion except further insults to other editors. We require editors to be civil and avoid attacks on other editors. Again, just because others choose to break those rules does not give you permission to do the same. Your comments were making a difficult situation worse. You were asked to avoid continuing, but reverted your edits in again. Wikipedia admins are entirely justified in using blocks to prevent this sort of antagonistic behavior to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Gwernol 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)