User talk:216.85.6.131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This message is regarding the page Santa Claus. Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Note that Wikipedia may see print or DVD publication, so we want more content, not more web links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 15:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Nov 2006

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Bismuth. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Dcooper 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If it is so obvious...

...that ThreeE is trying to "spool me up", then why not say something? His edits are disruptive and counterproductive as he is pushing a POV that seems to be anti-me, anti-Corps, and anti-FTAB and runs counter to policy and guidelines. He wants to do anything he can to push this POV despite being told by 3 admins that he is WRONG. — BQZip01 — talk 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you get a screenname? — BQZip01 — talk 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't like to give out my email to anyone. Regarding ThreeE, admins don't carry any additional weight in concensus -- they only keep things civil and within policy. 216.85.6.131 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Accusation

Unbelievable. The user making this accusation will accuse anyone of anything to "protect" his/her work. Please read WP:OWN. 216.85.6.131 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of warnings

Please stop removing warnings and notices from this page. Dreadstar † 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A) You deleted content with your revert. B) it is my user talk page. The accusation is unfounded, and I got the warning. 216.85.6.131 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking this is the page of a specific IP address out of the range allocated to Xspedius Communications Co. out of O'Fallon MO, for Hilton based in NM. This IP address may one day belong to someone else, so I suggest you create a user account per Wikipedia:Why create an account?. This process does not require you to submit an email address, so your concerns above aren't valid. Dreadstar † 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Additional information regarding WP:SOCK. This explains why you cannot remove the tag at this time. — BQZip01 — talk 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, you will be blocked from editing. 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. Dreadstar † 04:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How is my revert vandalism and the previous editor's revert not? 216.85.6.131 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You have have been edit warring to keep a contested tag in the article, this is disruptive behavior. Dreadstar † 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Or, the other user has been edit warring to remove a tag in the article... 216.85.6.131 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If the tag is valid, then I would agree with putting it back. I don't believe it is. The book appears to be a reliable source for the article. It seems to meet the requirements of WP:V. Your argument seems to be that it is the sole source for the content, which doesn't necessarily invalidate it as a source. What exactly is wrong with the content itself? What are you disputing besides the placement of the tag? Dreadstar † 05:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The source is published, edited, and written by a member of the article's subject organization. The source can be used, but it shouldn't be the only source. 216.85.6.131 06:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you explain that in a little more detail for me? Are there other sources? If the concern is bias or WP:NPOV, then the quotes from the book can attributed, e.g. "According to the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band book, such and such says so and so and this and that happened"<ref>.
What is the problem with the actual content drawn from the book? Is it wrong? Is it disputed or controversial? Is there too much of it, thus violating WP:UNDUE? Dreadstar † 07:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There is too much of it and for most of the article it is the only reference -- making the article a reprint or summary of the book. It is also very one sided. The book is meant to hype the band. It makes claims like "the band does the impossible," and "the band conquered the other bands." 216.85.6.131 12:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Now this is starting to shape up into a better argument, the "primary sources" tag isn't what you're looking for. We need to identify how much of the article is taken straight from the book and make sure all contentious content is properly attributed per WP:CITE#HOW, WP:SOURCES, and possibly WP:UNDUE and WP:FU. Discuss these issues in a civil manner on the talk page - edit warring will not get your version into place. Dreadstar † 18:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Are your "quotes" are paraphrased from your interpretation of the text or are they actual quotes? Specifically, where did you get that the article claims "the band does the impossible" and "the band conquered the other bands." "Conquered" and "does the impossible" do not appear in the article. The latter has been discussed almost constantly and has the consensus of a majority of the readers. It was not altered to its current state by me, but by an admin overseeing the discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours, because you have used multiple accounts to circumvent the three-revert rule, as detailed here. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)