User talk:203.87.127.18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rules ok for everyone else but the boys get to ignore them? =

Why wont anyone enforce the "one or more of" rule on MCGEDDON? I guess its because being in the anti vandal club, you get free reign to break the rules, revert to crap content etc etc.--203.87.127.18 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Need to report MCGEDDON for breaching the 3 RR rule

Magic the Gathering {{helpme}} Have reported to the help desk.

He is harrasing me, going around and deliberately undoing what I have done. HE seems to think a political party witch states its prolife will no ban abortion if it could.

Hi! You can report them at the Administrators Noticeboard. This is the part you need to look at: WP:AN3. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family First Party

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: "cj the account that reported me, is biased. I was adding factual information eg reference to the FFP official site! proving they support mandatory internet porn blocking, but cj account kept changing it back to opt-out. Checking the history and the refernce I put in will show this. Also the fact that 11 out of 23 candidates came from the same church, which cj also deleted and reverted. I had added facts, which cj odviously did not want on here for some reason, he is in breach of the same rule as me, but his intent was to hide the truth by removing what I had shown"

Decline reason: "3RR is 3RR. — jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 29 July 2007 (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.

Jpgordon, so odviously you dont have a comment about people removing facts to cover up the political party they support, is this for every topic or only certains ones?--203.87.127.18 21:02, 29 July 2007 (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: "see the references I have added in 2004 election NSW n New South Wales for the 2004 election, 11 of their 23 candidates for the 2004 legislative election were from a single Assemblies of God church, the Hawkesbury Church in Windsor.[2], the party was started by an AoG christian, all the candidates are christian, mainly AoG, So accordingly they ahve christian views but they dont want people to know that, the fact above has kept being removed by various FFP supports going to the site. Also removing the mandatory blocking of all porn into australia (cited in the FFP official website) converting it back to opt-out (Which is not the policy) Please look throught the history and see what various people have been doing, and warn them or somthing as im sure they will keep covering up the truth. Thanks"

Decline reason: "Sit out the 24 hours, familiarize yourself with the policy you violated, and there won't be any problem. — jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:36, 29 July 2007 (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.

Ok i broke the 3 revert rule, because people where deliberately removing factual information I had put there with references, Have you spoken to them that wiki is an enclopedia, not a propogranda device for the Family First Party? to put acrose certain points and delete trying to hide information taken from their own policys section of their website? I bet you havent --203.87.127.18 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm only attending to your request to be unblocked; you violated WP:3RR, which means you get to do something else for 24 hours. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical inerrancy

This has to be asked since Wiki is suppost to be factual.

Biblical inerrancy is odviously a POV

Secondly if you ask 99.99% of people who dont have a vested interest (They are not christian) they will tell you that biblical inerrancy is not a fact.

Well proving the orional bible has mistakes is not required. As all the bibles in use today are not the origional one, they are all copies atleast 2nd generation from the first.

So they can not have been translated with 100% accuracy, its easy to see diffenreces between all the different versions today. They all cant be correct, odviously none of them are exactly the same as the origonal.--203.87.127.18 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic the Gathering

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Magic: The Gathering. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 15:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Magic: The Gathering, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Gscshoyru you finally admitted that cards art work is valuable is not corret, after you kept adding it back in how many times? So it was you putting false statements in to push a POV that you may not even have! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

Please stop, repeating your removed edits to Magic: The Gathering. The explaination for the edits you are deleting is in the relevent section of the talk page for that article. — Aldaron • T/C 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Name some magic cards that are valuable because of their art work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

You'll notice that I left that part in, i.e. I put it back. (EDIT: or rather, left it out, I mispoke -- you put it back in!) There probably are some, but I don't have the information to contest it. Gscshoyru 15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So in the first place you changed it back from what I had done just because it was that way before, you odviously didnt do it becasue what I had written was wrong and the previous was correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

See this: [1] diff, you added it back in, not I. I just misspoke. Gscshoyru 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So now you are ok with the way I orgionally ahd it, before you did your 3 warnings. :)--203.87.127.18 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

--203.87.127.18 00:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --cj | talk 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

see the references I have added in 2004 election NSW in New South Wales for the 2004 election, 11 of their 23 candidates for the 2004 legislative election were from a single Assemblies of God church, the Hawkesbury Church in Windsor.[1], the party was started by an AoG christian, all the candidates are christian, mainly AoG, So accordingly they ahve christian views but they dont want people to know that, the fact above has kept being removed by various FFP supports going to the site. Also removing the mandatory blocking of all porn into australia (cited in the FFP official website) converting it back to opt-out (Which is not the policy) Please look throught the history and see what various people have been doing, and warn them or somthing as im sure they will keep covering up the truth. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

You've been reported for violating 3RR.--cj | talk 12:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah CJ so which one of your christian friends contacted you, I have seen your handy work in other religious areas, deleteing things you dont like being asked about christianity. You are on a Wiki break, So who contacted you about "family first party" and how did they do it? You odviously come From Adelaide. How many times have you been to an assembly of god church? Would you happen to be AoG? by any chance. I would love to know, but I bet you wont answer this! because you have somthing to hide, just like the family first party!--203.87.127.18 15:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Hu12 12:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable.--Hu12 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hu12 well its simpler to revert it than to re edit it evry time a support of that party wants to cut my truth out to conceal it. Can you go to these people (After checking there undos/cut outs and seeing whats been happing)--203.87.127.18 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be simpler, however its probably best to engage in discussion first if other editors dissagree with the edit. wait this block out, then attempt a dialog on the talk page of the article. I'm sure there is a middle ground where everyone can meet in agreement. regards--Hu12 06:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} "family first party" - christian connections, formatting problem what causes this problem? how do i fix it? thanks--203.87.127.18 09:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a single space at the start of a line of Wiki source, it will be printed with a fixed-width font and indented. See Help:Wikitext_examples#Just_show_what_I_typed for more information. --McGeddon 10:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is considered vandalism WP:VAND--Hu12 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued edit warring on Family First Party

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Hu12 11:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


HU12 you need to look at your friend CJ is doing, first i put the party was christian, he continually removed that, I have checked the partys web site they say they are NOT christian party. Most people in Australia think Family First is a christian party, so I am reporting Fact (Check website) that most people are confussed about. What country are you from? is CJ a friend of yours?--203.87.127.18 11:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you will be blocked if you do not stop. You are fundamentally violating Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, original research and verifiability in a wholly uncivil manner. Wikipedia is not about truth, my friend. Claims that Family First are a Christian party are exactly that, and must be attributed to a reliable source.
Also, you'll do well to stop making assumptions about me, as you're making yourself appear quite the fool. You couldn't be further off the mark about my political persuasion — which, let it be known, is entirely irrelevant to my activities on Wikipedia — and your thought that I have collaborated with Hu12 is ludicrous. He is involved here simply because he responded to the 3RR report I was obliged to lodge.--cj | talk 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
CJ has said nothing in the disscusion page, he is the one deciding whats best for evryone on his own. Execept, first he dissagreed with it being christian, now he dissagree with it being non christian. Its only a two option queston yes or no, and the party says its not christian!--203.87.127.18 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As was suggested above, engage in discussion the best you can. I don't want you to go down the same path as before. Seems there are other editors who dissagree with those edits as well. Once in a discussion, then you can attempt to convince them of this fact in which there is confusion. Either way if you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be. Perhaps you should give it some time in order to let things cool down before editing. also a concern is the blanking and removal of comments on this IP page, not sure why your persistanty vandalizing it, but it certainly isn't appropriate behavior for someone who wishes to taken seriously. regards.--Hu12 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hu12 its got to much stuff all messy, when its not needed.

So you odviously dont have a problem with CJ deleteing facts he doenst like, when he has not gone to discussion first?

So why are you chossing his side over mine?

Is CJ allowed to use abusive name calling? I would have thought that was against the rules is it? what are the rules, and how do they say his abuse in the history of FFP should be handled?

I added facts he didnt like, he deleted them, he is the one vandalising in that case? or is it he just goes complaing after he does 2 reverts and I do one to undo his vandalism? Isnt this a false report I only undid his edit once? He started by deleting a fact i had placed on the page! --203.87.127.18 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

CJ so whay are you opposed to the page containing the fact that the party is not christian, as shown on their web site? I would like to know. Most people in australia think FFP is a christian party, so the fact should be shown to educate them.-- You like to hang out on the page alot, but then again you didnt deny you are Assembly of God which alot of people say are behind Family First.203.87.127.18 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slashes versus commas

Regarding your edit to Magic: The Gathering, slashes are not "better than" commas for separating three items in a sentence. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Slashes. --McGeddon 11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice of you to quote the style guide, pitty you didnt read it, or did you just revertback to the origional text, when the style guide says to put one or more infront of them (Comment in your edit) as odviously all decks do not include allthe things listed! --203.87.127.18 07:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a separate issue. In this particular case, the text is in the introductory section of an article, and I think we lose more than we gain by breaking up the flow of the sentence with unnecessary details. --McGeddon 09:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The style guide fragment you're quoting is suggesting that "one or more of" is a better wording than "and/or", it's not saying that the phrase "one or more of" must be used before every single plural list in Wikipedia. --McGeddon 10:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family First Abortion

I deleted the section because the cherry-picked sentence fragment seemed misleadingly blunt, and because I'm not familiar enough with their policies to put it into context. Ideally we should be citing third-party sources on the subject. --McGeddon 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Third party sources? So someones opinion is better than what a political party lists as their policy? (They havent been in power to show how they would actually trate any subject matter). So any thrid party opion, is just guess work.--203.87.127.18 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Drawing from a wide range of reliable sources is always preferable to quoting directly from the subject of the article as a single source. This is well illustrated with the whole "Christian" issue - if the Family First web site studiously avoids mentioning this, but it's "common knowledge" amongst voters and the press (to the point where there are many reliable sources that refer to it), then we should quote those sources. --McGeddon 12:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Im just going by what they have ontheir website and what their president have said, FFP is not christian, Im happy to go with that, if people want to build a case that FFP is christian they welcome to join the discussion.--203.87.127.18 12:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

I'm not claiming that the group wouldn't stop abortions, I'm saying that it's original research to state that Family First would "would make it illegal if they could". There are a whole range of legislations they could enact that would stop short of "making abortion illegal", and without a source, we shouldn't be speculating as to what their exact stance would be. --McGeddon 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

I consider your continuing failure to assume good faith, despite repeated requests, a form of personal attack. I'll ask you one more time to please stop, and comment on the content, rather than me. Thanks,--cj | talk 13:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok CJ you dont want to deny you go to Assembly of God church, you didnt have a problem denying you voted ffp tho, Since as you say Wiki is ment to be neutral, I was just trying to see what neutral point you come from. Well you go around deleteing facts with references dont join the discussion first, just do what CJ knows whats best. Dont like it when it happens to your edits I bet!--203.87.127.18 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This comment is exactly the sort of thing you have been asked to stop. I can't see why you persist in attacking other contributors and misrepresenting events except to be purposefully disruptive. This is trollish behaviour.--cj | talk 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. This user has clearly failed to assume good faith with respect to my edits on the Magic the Gathering article, and has persisted in making personally disparaging remarks regarding those edits. — Aldaron • T/C 13:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good faith, Well you came along and deleted what i had put in (which is said as the first or second item about the court case, on every news article on the subject on the net) Then proceded to claim, the court case would not decide that issue and list several other items stating the court case was about that. "A trial would almost certainly have focused on these issues and would not have been a test of the "validity" of the patent". — Aldaron

Civil Aldron -> I suggest you learn more about patents. — Aldaron • T/C 17:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Didnt answer my question about what you had claimed, and how it was opposite to all the media reports(Which I would really like to know) as I can only assume its somthing made up, you just beeing uncivil.

I assume good faith, but I dont assume the ridulious claims people make are correct, when they fly in the face of every media report on google about the subject.

Who didnt want to discuss any more on patents, did not want to reference your quote from unknown source on the page, but want to keep the "Quote" from the guy who did the patent paper work (He sounds very NEUTRAL) and there was not an opposing view. For weeks before you had been deleteing anything that called into question the patent.--203.87.127.18 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

With regard to your comments on Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering#Fantastical_creatures: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--McGeddon 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey you cant give a warning, maybe you would like to follow the rules for text and the use of "one or more". You are the person describing humans as fatansy creatures, why not fix the web page?--203.87.127.18 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic the gathering

hey learn eanglish, when you mention fantasy creatures and not any others??? that suggest they aint there, Alos, as stated repeeadly, which you ahve ssmeed to ignore, check the WIKI RULES on the use of "one or more of" then change it back to "one or more of" as stated in the rules on Wiki, if you dont like the Wiki rules dont ignore them!--203.87.127.18 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidentially, you seem to misunderstand that rule, even though it has been explained to you already multiple times. "One or more of" is a replacement for "and/or," and is not to be used in every list, especially if it makes the sentence very awkward.
Second of all, when you eat, you use a knife, don't you? You also use a fork, but the sentence "you use a knife to eat" is true, is it not? Likewise, using fantastical creatures in a deck is true, even if not all of them are. And I don't really care, but if you're going to tell people to learn English, it might not look so good that your comments are misspelled and improper English themselves. Gscshoyru 11:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gscshoyru here, "one or more of" makes the sentence very clunky. I also agree that you ruin your own credibility with your spelling errors and massive use of comma splicing. 64.241.16.2 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru,64.241.16.2 maybe read the rules about the use of "one or more" instead of continually saying you dont like it, That doesnt matter its a WIKI RULE so either accept it or get out of it. ITS A RULE ITS A RULE ITSA A RULE ITS A RULE ITS A RULE ITS A RULE.

  Gee will yous read the rules and understnad that?--203.87.127.18 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

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: "Why wont somone enfore the "one or more" of rule when using xxx,xxx,xxxx, and xxx. Its in the rule but MCGEDDON ignores it So does MASTCELL. Is it casuse the boys in the anti vandalism club egt to ignore rules and do what they want, because they know best. When people are favoured and allowed to break the rules, how does that look to everyone else?"

Decline reason: "This does not address the reason for your block. — Yamla 15:39, 2 August 2007 (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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to edit-war immediately after release of your prior block. 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.

You've continued to edit-war on Family First Party. The 3-revert rule doesn't mean you get exactly 3 reverts every 24 hours; it's intended to prevent exactly the sort of edit-war you're engaging in. You have 4 reverts in just a little over 24 hours, shortly after completing a previous block for a 3RR violation; you're being reverted by a number of other editors, which is a good indication you don't have consensus for your edits. When this block expires, please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page rather than attempting to force them in by edit-warring. There is no deadline, and Wikipedia functions by consensus. MastCell Talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you would liek to have at all the reverts MCGeddon ahs been doing on what I have done, you will not he ahs NOT discussed anything as I have and as usuall just does what mcgeddon knows is best

MAstCell well it seems MCGEDDON can go around reverting edits, event he last ones which JUST where put in to obey the use of "one or more" as defined by the rules. You please check the rules and see if this is true, but anyway since its not referenced, its just opion so why havent you deleted it? Its in clear breach as no reference and its just an opion (PLEASE DELETE it as the rules require)? IF not explain why YOU are not obey the rules! cause MCgeddon who live on here requested it?

I understand wiki is not ment to be academic paper and its just ment to be a pointless opion of people like McGeddon who live on here, but maybe you would like to follow rules and tell him to follow the "one more rule" that would be novel, just seems mcgeddon in this all might and powerfull position on here (Which im sure is the greatest feat of his life so far and most probally ever will be) like to do what ever he wants, doesnt obey the "one or more" rule and now you are encourageing him. So Wiki is a place for small groups of like minded idiots to show their views?--203.87.127.18 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why wont anyone enforce the "one or more of" rule on MCGEDDON? I guess its because being in the anti vandal club, you get free reign to break the rules, revert to crap content etc etc.

Does this means i still allowed to vanalise other pages that mcgeeddon doesnt hang out on with all the other loggins I have? all 17 others created on different IPs!--203.87.127.18 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rule page also states that:

If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

This article was fine prior to the "one or more of" debate. Several editors of the article agree that the prior usage is the stronger wording. DbishopNWF 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts and trolling. --cj | talk 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For those wondering, see here and here.--cj | talk 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Changed to 6 months, as we don't usually indefinitely block IP's unless they're open proxies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MastCell (talk • contribs).

Does blocking an IP work? Dont people ring their ISP and have a new one 5 minutes latter? LOL--203.192.92.73 11:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)