User talk:67.98.206.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with the page Antimatter weapon on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 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. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Successful AFC

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Troy Anthony Davis was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account. Thank you.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

on User:HG/workshop/AoIA restructured editing looked plausible, at first glance. Thanks very much for your involvement. But did you miss my request to place all proposed textual edits in the Talk page, not the draft article? I'm glad to see you dealing with headings and the rearrangement of text, but textual emendations I would like to put only in Talk. So, would you mind self-reverting and moving your textual suggestions to Talk there? It would be helpful. Thanks again, HG | Talk 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

don't have a Wikipedia account ! please join thanks see all benefits here. (Smart_Viral (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] notice

welocome to wikipedita, the article of battle of jenin has been filled with some problematic editing that instead of promoting the article degraded it into problematic requests and claims.

your edit here, stating "go with what the source says", is in conflict with the fact that User:Burgas00 removed all the sources and changed the paragraph just a couple hours earlier.

in general i try to assume good faith, but considering this is a second time such an event is occurring in such a short time span on this page, i note to you that you should log in so that you will not attract some serious allegations. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

are you User:146.115.58.152 ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what the user page says. -- 67.98.206.2 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block for disruption at Jewish_Defense_League

Please use the talk page rather then reverting. Continuing to revert is disruptive and will merit longer blocks of both IP addresses (other IP 146.115.58.152). In addition comments such as User_talk:Armon#Jewish_Defense_League are not productive, and continued offers to "help make edits stick" will merit blocks for disruption. Instead, please use the talk page of the various articles that you have editorial concerns with. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

unblock|1=I did use the talk page from the very beginning (see Talk:Jewish_Defense_League#Soapboxing), the discussion was productive, and the WP:SOAP and WP:SELFPUB issues I had with the sourcing of that article have now been resolved to my satisfaction.[1] This block is a day late if anything, if Eagle101 is talking about this edit; just look at all the edits I've made since then, which weren't reverted.[2] I don't believe WP:BRD counts as "disruption" and it's bizarre to come out of the blue and block my accounts over some settled content dispute. Eagle has completely misread and misconstrued my comments on User_talk:Armon. I didn't make any offer to do anything, so I have no idea what this admin is talking about.
BTW, whoever unblocks me, make sure it works. Apparently one of the other people hit by Eagle 101's blocking spree has had technical trouble with its removal. -- 67.98.206.2 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and unblock User:146.115.58.152, since we're the same person. -- 67.98.206.2 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason this is taking over five six seven hours to review? -- 67.98.206.2 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I reviewed it and couldn't quite make heads or tails out of it. I find the comment at User talk:Armon potentially troubling: WP:3RR is not an entitlement, and that does sound like a call to enlarge an edit war. On the other hand, I do see plenty of useful discussion. I wouldn't want to undo the block without a chance to hear Eagle's reasoning in more depth, but I'm sure that would take a long time to sort out, and given that this is a 24 hour block, I figure, it will be almost over by then. The {{unblock}} procedure is really more for contesting longer blocks and indefinite blocks. It's not meant to be a quick way to overturn short-term blocks. Mangojuicetalk 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of it either, which is why I'm appealing the block. Actually, my comments to Armon were an olive branch regarding an edit war at Southern California InFocus, the essential point of which was that I wasn't applying a double standard regarding WP:SOAP and I was perfectly happy to try and apply the same standard to the article he suggested,[3] even though at that particular moment in time my edits were being reverted and other editors were the ones not engaging on Talk:Jewish Defense League, having (understandably) mistaken me for a drive-by vandal. I understand how a third party completely unfamiliar with the context could read my comments to Armon some other way, which is why I don't find Eagle's decision to find cause for a block out of the blue based on one comment on a personal talk page (which he apparently just stumbled upon while blocking Armon), and some two day old edit on Jewish_Defense_League, particularly enlightened. The accusation that I wasn't engaging in the talk page are clearly false,[4] and by the time of Eagle's block the entire issue had been resolved, happily, by everyone in the discussion and the referencing of the article had been vastly improved by myself and other editors working together perfectly harmoniously.[5] This block is entirely bizarre. What's next, I'll be blocked for an edit I made a month ago? -- 67.98.206.2 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. User:Eagle 101's other two blocks from today were quickly lifted as groundless.[6][7] I guess I just don't have any friends in high places. -- 67.98.206.2 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked back and I see that no one else even responded, and the block is over now. While it's perfectly okay for you to edit anonymously, I suggest you register a username. First of all, it's actually more anonymous that way - your IP address reveals where you are connecting from. Second, people tend to give non-IP editors more respect. And third, if such a situation happens again, you'd be more likely to get some attention. Honestly, unblock requests from IPs have merit only once in a blue moon, so I think they get ignored by some. Mangojuicetalk 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful AFC

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Huwara was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Melsaran (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Let's wait until an official announcement shall we? I'd rather not cite the blabbermouth extra, who's got into enough trouble. Just wait for the film itself. Alientraveller 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also add the extra may just be spouting out old rumours. It's not like he's actively involved in production. My own theory is Blanchett is Jones' daughter. Alientraveller 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but again I feel the guy is not actively involved in production, so he may be unreliable. I would not cite him. And yeah, we already documented that Darabont's draft didn't have Jones junior. Alientraveller 20:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to ID

I have reverted your edit to the Intelligent design article. The claim you removed is cited to 9 separate reliable sources. In the future, do not alter or water down cited information. Raul654 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Don't post that link again or I'll block you. This has nothing to do with needing it in order to improve the encyclopaedia. ElinorD (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm just going to ignore this due to a lack of response to my queries to this admin here and here. -- 67.98.206.2 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a fine line between "testing the water" and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The latter may lead to blocks. Please be more careful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Providing a link to a webpage under discussion wasn't intended to be disruptive, though it indeed may have disproved a point. -- 67.98.206.2 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting, that of all the so-called "bad links" that have been made recently in the course of the discussions regarding what links are acceptable, the only ones that anybody has made a serious attempt to suppress are this one, which is to a site that is in general considered a reliable, mainstream source; and a link to Teresa Nielsen Hayden's Making Light blog, also regarded (on some subjects) as a reliable source. User:ElinorD is the would-be censor in both cases. Several links to things more widely regarded as "attack sites" have been allowed to stand without serious objection in various places within the ArbCom and policy debates, however. Curious. *Dan T.* 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from WAS

Don't you mean "User:146.115.58.152 is also me." Two people sharing one account (not allowed) and one person having two accounts (allowed if not abused) are two different things. WAS 4.250 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Username accounts, you mean, not IP addresses. You are correct, perhaps, that "account" is a poor choice of words. -- 67.98.206.2 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The new wording is much better. Well done. When I first came to wikipedia I tried to interact on the talk pages without an account and with an ever changing 4.250.***.*** IP - You can see by my account name how well that worked out! Cheers. WAS 4.250 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL. OK, that clears that up! -- 67.98.206.2 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFC

Thank you so much for the barnstar! I enjoy working at AFC, and I've actually learned a lot about a wide variety of topics during the course of reviewing submissions, so it is a win/win! Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)