User talk:203.112.2.212

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please state the reasons for your unblock, at this time I see none -- Tawker 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
my blocking was for violating my arbcom ruling, revert parole, however that clause has already passed:

[[1]] "Chuck F is hereby limited to 1 revert per article per day and must discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page. This probation will last for 1 year and will start as soon as Chuck F is done serving whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom. Admins can treat anything more than 1 revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. If Chuck F demonstrates good behavior in a minimum of 6 weeks, then he can petition the ArbCom to stay this ruling. " Note that it has already been more then a year since the ruling took effect. 203.112.2.212 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You should have thought about these restrictions before you spent months avoiding blocks and disrupting libertarianism-related articles as recently as November. Now you're back here making personal attacks, disrupting other users' pages, and edit warring on Jack Thompson (attorney). You have also made many significant edits without using an edit summary (another arbcom restriction). This block is justified. Rhobite 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unblock

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor
  • Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Note that you may be blocked for disruption.. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, My username is Tawker not tweaker.

You're more than welcome to add your edit to the talk page and we'll discuss if it needs to be added to the main page. Thanks Tawker 07:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] re comment you left on my talk page

In regards to the Jack Thompson edits:

You are incorrect. I did not make any additions to the article that weren't already there. I only reverted to the last pre-vandalized version. Please investigate a little bit further before issuing warnings like that. Thank you.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, that edit would not have violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please note the use of words like "Some". Also, as far as I can tell, everything so far in that edit is factually accurate. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JT-bw-enhcontrast.png

Please do not delete the tags put on unless you can address the issues raised. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper?) 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for disruption. I've also restored the sock tag: it was wrong to suggest moving it to your talk page, and then deleting it from your talk page. William M. Connolley 11:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You're been blocked again for reverting Michael Snow's user page and repeatedly adding the userbox. Hypocrisy? You're subject to several restrictions due to your past disruption of Wikipedia articles; Michael Snow isn't. If you insist on editing from IP addresses instead of logging into User:Chuck F, these addresses will be tagged so that people can be aware of your restrictions. And if you want to have control over the content of your user page, all you need to do is log in. Rhobite 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unblock template

I suggest waiting out the duration of your block, 24 hours, and then returning. Moe ε 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Shatner

How William Shatner Changed the World was an intentional joke title—in part because Paramount wouldn't let the program use the name Star Trek without paying royalties, if memory serves. This is not phrasing that can be used in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV if you have any questions. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Libertarianism. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alphachimp 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin Schiff

Wait - so you removed Irwin Schiff's fraudster tag, then justified adding it (badly, I might add) to Joseph Smith by saying that "if Irwin Schiff is a fraudster ...". That doesn't make sense. So I've reverted for the time being. --Plumbago 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user: It's probably not for you or I to say whether Mr. Schiff really believes the stuff he has said. He was found guilty by a jury in a Federal court of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371. He is currently serving a long prison sentence for that and other convictions. Yours, Famspear 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a footnote (and without getting into the subject of Joseph Smith and what he did or did not do), I would add that the label in question would seem to be more appropriately applied to someone like Irwin Schiff -- who was actually convicted of conspiracy to defraud, than it would be as applied to someone like Joseph Smith who, at least as far as I can tell, is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article as having been convicted of that. Yours, Famspear 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Storm Rider (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 22 January 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- Atlant 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Confusing

Mass tagging articles as confusing is not going to help anybody. Some articles are not confusing, but the topic could be just too complex for your background. If you believe an article is confusing, please state your reasons in the edit summary or on talk, so that it is clear what to do. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)