User talk:204.2.209.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, ns1.insomniacgames.com, is registered to Insomniac Games, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

[edit] Warnings

[edit] March 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George Carlin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. DodgerOfZion (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My addition is thoroughly documented in the sources given, which are linked at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Warning regarding your edit to Terry Gilliam

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Terry Gilliam. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the information I am adding is contained in the references listed at the bottom of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk • contribs)

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 Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not violating anything. I am entering information that is correctly cited and documented. Your liberal bias simply prevents you from accepting fact. And don't overestimate your power, sir. This is a user-generated site and I will continue to apply edits, just as any other user does. I do not need or desire your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk • contribs)
Your edits speak for themselves. You are violating Wikipedia polices (including Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Your ability to edit here is a privilege granted to you by the community, not a right; you do need approval to edit here, otherwise you wouldn't be blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem incapable of realizing that you are not the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk • contribs)
Actually I am. I have the privilege of editing article here because I follow the community-accepted policies and guidelines. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of becoming part of the community. My warning to you above relates to these three edits you made: [1][2][3] - none of which provide sources (contradicting your claim above), and all of which you failed to write in a neutral way, violating the policies about neutral point of view and verifiability. And to top it off, when you were given a polite warning, you violated the no personal attacks policy. Editing here is a privilege which you have abused. It is not a right. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Amatulic. Captain panda 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Terry Gilliam. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for [4]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 9 March 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: "I was blocked by one of the many asshole users of this site who think they run it. This is a user-generated site which means no one user is of greater import than any other. The changes I applied to these articles were cited (which is why those changes ARE CURRENTLY STILL ON THE PAGES) but the information contained in these changes was contested by biased people who apparently do nothing all day but monitor their pet topics for changes, then revert them and attempt to bully others into altering reality to suit their bias. The fact that my changes ARE STILL ON THE PAGES and CITED proves that this block is unjustified. And if your 'admins' do not wish to be insulted, they should not be insulting."

Decline reason: "Try requesting an unblock again without the personal attacks and general incivility. — Yamla (talk) 21:45, 10 March 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.

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: "The only reason I need to give is that the information I entered remains in the articles, cited. So I have clearly been incorrectly targeted and abused by one of your 'admins'. In addition to being unblocked I would like action taken against this person for harassment."

Decline reason: "This is not an acceptable excuse for edit warring. — Yamla (talk) 22:05, 10 March 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.

{{unblock|I am not offering an excuse for 'edit warring'. And your 'admin' obviously engaged in the exact same behavior since he removed cited text three times, yet I'm sure he's still free to edit pages. Since you are clearly biased, as you have now offered two completely separate excuses for refusing to remove an incorrect block, I would like a different admin to review this block.}}

Could you check that you are still blocked? Addhoc (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The block appears to have been removed, thank you (whoever). Note that on reflection, I did not realize I had violated the 'three revert' policy; but it should be pointed out that this occurred because your admin kept deleting the text I added, even though it was cited (the citation was even already in the article before I touched it, I simply referenced the quote). After I made it clear that the text was cited he still went back and rephrased it to be biased towards the subject, but I didn't feel like getting into another argument about it. If you cannot keep your admins from abusing the site it seems a bit heavy-handed to ban users for committing the same offenses.