User talk:71.112.7.212

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of 71.112.115.55.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs
An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of 71.112.142.5.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs
An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of 71.112.6.35.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

Please read this info:

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be anything but. For more information on this, see

If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!

[edit] My reversions

I reverted your changes to this talk page as per the guidelines here, specifically:

"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." Bobo. 04:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize. It is difficult to not take these kind of messages on your talk page personally when you know you are not the perpetrator of vandalism on a single, presumably shared, IP address. May I invite you therefore, to create an account, in order to save yourself from receiving these kinds of warnings again. It's easy, free, and takes very little time whatsoever to do, and you have the benefit of not getting caught in anyone else's problems. All the best. Bobo. 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting of warnings

Your reverting of warnings places by other people is against guidelines here, as you can see in the previous post. Continuing to do this will result in a ban from editing.

Chrisch 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it actually won't. That ceased to be blockable quite some time ago. If the anonymous editor would like to remove the warnings, (s)he may do so, as (s)he is obviously aware of them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Response

Warnings are not allowed to be archived. While you have not made these vandalism edits, someone else on the same IP has, therefore they must stay. You can register to avoid being confused with the other vandal, however, if you remove the warnings again, I will have to report you for banning. Be warned.

PS: Did "Messages left on this page will receive no reply, and may be removed at any time. Please use the links below to leave your message on a subpage" make no sense? I have moved your message this time, but if you leave one on that page again, I will remove and ignore it.

Chrisch 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, and messages left here may be removed at any time too. but where's the vandalism?
There are documented diffs right on your talk page—right here—showing exactly what the issue is. I'm not going to repeat what was said, but if you are upset at these warnings, maybe you should read the very solid and real advice given to you as to how to go about doing the changes you are obsessed with making. So far the only attempts at discussion happen after another editor reverts your edits. How about starting the discussion BEFORE that happens and act in good faith. Also, you still have not gotten your own account on Wiki despite days of you battling this issue and simply trying to hide your behavior on the page. I'm heartened that now other editors are seeing who you are and what you do 71.112.7.212. Now please, with so many people paying attention, perhaps you should simply stop worrying about your talk page and act positively elsewhere on Wiki and show that what you want to do is valid and good. By that example people will believe you are acting in good faith. Otherwise, you are indeed a troll and are pushing the buttons of dozens of editors who are growing tired of your behavior. --BaseballDetective 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
those have no diffs, because there was no vandalism. and stop the personal attacks baseball detective. they are not permitted here.
We are not required to show you diffs. A full list of your contribs can be found here. Also, judging by your last post, you seem to be an expert on what is and is not allowed here. Hopefully you will remember that clearing warnings is not allowed, since you're so good at pointing out what other users do :) Chrisch 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
gee, if you are so sure about the vandalism, why not just show me what you are talking about?
You can see the names of some of the articles you trashed right here, on this page. By checking your recent contrib list, I can see that most of your edits are vandalism (especially the "remove advertising" edits). I am not required to spoon-feed you examples of your destructiveness - you can clearly see this yourself. Understand that if you continue arguing, reverting your talk page, or anything else against Wikipedia policy, you will be banned. Consider this your final warning.
Also, since you can't read clear instructions, your comments on my talk page are being reverted by myself, and other editors. This will continue to happen until you learn to read the clear instructions on the talk page.
Chrisch 05:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
why not just show the diffs? this is a simple request. --71.112.7.212 05:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not just learn how to comment/read/comprend and at least sign your comments before berating people who can actually form sentences about anything. The diffs are linked to directly in the alerts. Plain and simple. --BaseballDetective 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An olive branch

I'm prepared to put this incident behind me if you are. This incident is most probably either just a coincidence of Wikipedia's existence, or a problem which will clearly either sort itself out over time, or manifest itself once more in in the future. Is this fair enough? Bobo. 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's easy for me to do so. Everyone makes mistakes, after all, and then again, everyone who has not made a particular mistake has been accused of having done something at some time or other. Bobo. 06:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

I have cleared the warnings, as the editor is obviously aware of them. To those stating that removing warnings is not allowed-yes, it actually is, and users will not be blocked for that. To the anonymous editor, it would seem that many of your changes have a strong consensus against them. If you believe that we should not include information on Academy Awards in articles about those who have won them, please start the discussion on the article's talk page, as any such change made without discussion will be quickly reverted in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rbaish

Hello, I am Rbaish and I am not you.Rbaish 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have no violated the 3RR rule. I will not report your violation if you immediately cease in your attempts to add uncited statements to the article of a living person. Arcayne 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, this User has a history, and likes to remove warnings and comments from their Talk page. They have a long history of contentious and disruptive edits, and any request you make I will add my own experience. --David Shankbone 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule, as well as our biographies of living persons policy, at Nancy Reagan. Please be more careful to find reliable sources for any claims regarding a living person, and to discuss rather than engage in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't go through putting the "unblock" tempate on here, but Seraphimblade you might have this page on your watchlist. I did not violate either policy. Take a look at the diffs for 3RR and I think you'll see the first is my adding content. The last is correcting a mispelling. If you would please unblock and speak to the editor that filed the incorrect 3RR I would appreciate it.
I think you'll also find there is no BLP violation; I added information about a well known book published by Simon&Shuster that has been in print for many years (it's even been described as "encyclopedic" in the media, how often do we get that?). The subject of this book, Nancy Reagan, has never attempted to stop the book from being published, which is more than enough to preclude her from filing a lawsuit against wikipedia.

Here's one paragraph of a review:

Ms. Kelley, author of the now notorious "Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography" (and also the author of unauthorized biographies of Frank Sinatra, Jacqueline Onassis and Elizabeth Taylor), has written one of the most encyclopedically vicious books in the history of encyclopedic viciousness. Before the reader has reached page 80, he has been told that the former First Lady is a liar, a fake, a cheapskate, a freeloader, a woman of loose morals and a known consorter with homosexuals; that her stepfather was a racist and an anti-Semite; that her godmother was a lesbian; and that as a girl she herself was known to hang out with women of Sapphic propensities, yet also to kiss men she hardly knew with more passion than any of them could have reasonably anticipated. To think: we, as a nation, punished Donna Rice for less.

Basically, the problem there is: If you want to write an article about that book, great. But that material does not belong in Nancy Reagan's autobiography-not even attributed. See WP:ATT, and the cautions on using sources with a clear bias. Your material would be fine for an article about the book, but not an article about the person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Editorial oversight is quite different on a book-there are tons of wild conspiracy theory books out there that have undergone "editorial oversight" of some kind or another, and this seems to be one of them. Look at the cautions on clearly biased sources. As to the block, yes, I do still believe that between the reverts and BLP issues that it was quite justified. Your continued lack of understanding on that seems to indicate that the concern was justified-surely, you don't honestly believe that the NYT was using "encyclopedic" in the sense of "appropriate source for an encyclopedia"? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
An RFC might be a good idea regarding the book. Yes, technically you only reverted three times, but especially in BLP cases, we're much more likely to block preventatively. If someone brings up a BLP concern, stop. Don't re-add the material they stated they were concerned about, get wider input first. If the consensus is that the source is reliable and the material is acceptable, then put it back. We take edit-warring with BLP concerns involved very seriously, and the best advice I can give you is to not get involved in one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's no way to "erase" blocks, per se, nor if there was would I necessary think this one's unjustified. I've no idea if you're Rbaish or not, I haven't checked that out. What your option would be, of course, is to sign up for a user account-blocks from an IP don't show up in an account's block log. The biography may indeed turn out to merit a mention, but please get some wider input before putting it back. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright...let's be entirely clear here. 3RR does not mean that you're entitled to revert three times no matter what. Yes, technically, you only reverted three times. (You can cite a diff of this message if you feel the need to prove that for some reason). However, the fact that BLP concerns were brought up, and you continued to revert, in my opinion did merit a block. It happens, a lot of very good editors here have been blocked at one point or another. It's done with now, you're back to editing, can we put it behind us? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Going to repeat this one more time. The block was not incorrect, you were edit-warring over something removed due to a BLP concern. Technically, you were engaged in a disruptive edit war rather than actually breaking 3RR. I'm not going to reblock and unblock you to cross an i rather than dot a t. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice

Generally, when several editors contact you with concerns, it's probably time to focus on your behavior, not theirs. I would strongly advise you to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Talk:Afro at 19:24, April 1, 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Afro; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for your persistent removal of others' comments at Talk:Afro. Thanks for bringing the situation to my attention by filing a 3RR report. Kafziel Talk 23:00, 1 April 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: "I have removed information from a talkpage, those edits were personal attacks. As far as I know that is perfectly acceptable at wikipedia. In any case, my 3RR was filed against another user, who has reinserted personal attacks five times in short order"

Decline reason: "Personal attacks are false and insulting labeling of editors. You fit neither category. Hence, by logical deduction, those were not personal attacks. — 210physicq (c) 00:28, 2 April 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.

Here's what personal attacks has to say: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people....Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." And here's what I removed "Ignore this disruptive troll. ....one argumentative troll's odd behavior....he whole schtick she's pulling is to goad people into getting angry, and then act like a wounded little bird, lost in the woods, having her wings clipped by mean wolves.....". Please explain how these don't meet the wikipedia definition of personal attacks, cause to me it seems pretty cut and dried. 71.112.7.212 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are channels for dealing with personal attacks. Repeated removal of material you don't like is not one of them. Kafziel Talk 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So removing personal attacks violates 3RR but re-inserting them doesn't? Please explain. 71.112.7.212 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The larger issue is not blind adherance to a little policy lik 3RR. By reducing it to that, you obscure the greater issue. The greater issue is that this IP address (see the contribs list) has a long history of vandalism, and such vandalism and the refusal of the user(s) of this IP address to cop to it has frustrated some of the established users. The removal of comments from talk pages is only a single event in a long history of problematic edits. Additionally, removing personal attacks from a talk page does NOT serve any purpose for the attackee. Ideally, if the comments ARE personal attacks, the attackee would want the evidence to remain in plain sight to justify their accusations of personal attacks. If the attacks are removed, it is difficult to build a case against the accused attacker. In short, leave attacks public. If they are truly personal attacks, the only person they can embarass is the one who left them. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
precisely where is the vandalism you speak of? if you mean removing personal attacks, that's not what the vandalism policy is all about. if there's other vandalism, where are the diffs
your view about personal attacks, "leave them in", is not one i agree with and is not a wikipedia policy. actually wiki policy is to remove them and most editors remove them on sight. 71.112.7.212 05:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
i'd still like to know about the 3rr -- is removing personal attacks a blockable offense, but re-inserting them not?
Reply to above. OK. I did a review, and despite multiple blocks, I see no outright examples of vandalism. I am making an unqualified apology for leveling such an accusation. With regard to the rest, it appears I stand no chance of convincing you of the reasons of why your behavior has drawn the ire of many others. By constantly trying to divert the issue to 3RR, by trying to refuse to confront your own behavior, and by trying to imply that others bad behavior somehow excuses yours shows me that you will never be convinced that you can be incivil without actually breaking any other wikipedia policy. I consider the matter closed from my perspective.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Admins: Multiple reasons this User deserves to be blocked

  1. Asked to stop reverting discussion comments on the Afro page by Jayron32, but then subsequently reverted several more times. Three editors have re-reverted this User on that Talk page.
  2. Refuses to sign edits, despite being Botted three times with clear instructions on how to do so.
  3. When other editors disregard rules and receive warnings, incites Users to ignore the guidelines and policies.
  4. Removes content that demonstrate an article, despite several editors reverting. Then attempts to rename captions of photographs to make them not applicable to the article.
  5. Removed historical depiction of dreadlocks, similar to her vandalism of the Afro page.
  6. Although this admin review of the User for sockpuppetry proved inconclusive, their disruptive edits were discussed at length.
  7. Blanks highly-valuable, lengthy and referenced sections on articles, and continually reverts the reverts.
  8. When other articles point out this User's disruptive edits the User removes the comments from discussion pages, calling them "personal attacks"
  9. There is not one edit that can be shown hwere I called this User a troll; however, several other editors have done so.
  10. Removes warnings and advice against her disruptive edits, and calls them personal attacks.
  11. User was blocked for "extensive, repeated, and unrepentant vandalism" by Nihonjoe, and still maintains that she was unfairly blocked.
  12. Also blocked by Seraphimblade for "3RR, BLP on Nancy Reagan".
  13. Blocked by Kafziel for "trolling and 3RR on Talk:Afro"

At this point, the anonymous User is turning to admins for help in her disruptive editing, trolling and inability to "grow" as a Wikipedian. --David Shankbone 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Information Regarding Identity of 71.112.7.212

I know it is standard practice on Wikipedia to assume that anyone (1) without an account and (2) making edits from an anonymous IP address might be more than one person. But in the case of 71.112.7.212, all of the edits are indeed the same person. Their IP address traces back to a static IP assigned by Verizon in Seattle, WA. The pattern of edits are also the same. Most notably—as inidicated above—this user's complete inability to participate positively on Wikipedia in any way. Even on the level of using a signature on their posts. I urge any admin reading this to seriously look over this user's history and take it seriously when other editors request a longer ban of this user. He/she contributes nothing positive towards Wikipedia and has definitely behaved like a troll and shows no signes of change. BaseballDetective 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I would normally just remove this, as I've been told is OK to do, but I've seen times here when people are incorrectly blocked so I won't make a "wrong move" and revert it. The statement above has been made by an editor who has, because of an edit conflict, been harrassing me. Just today he has re-inserted personal attacks calling me a troll at least 5 times. I reported him for 3RR, but he hasn't been blocked yet. Why did he do this? Because I removed a photo he took with his own camera. He is quite proud of photos he takes. It was an OK photo, but wasn't appropriate for the article it is in.

Anyway, addressing all his comments above could take a long time. But just look at one: the Blood type diet. This is a pop/fad/pseudoscience diet that has little basis in science, it says that you should choose your diet based on whether your blood type is A/B/AB or O. While it might be OK for this article to be in wikipedia if it is sufficiently popular, there was a section in there which is completely original research, discussing the genetics of chimpanzees and gorillas, which I removed. Other editors agreed with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blood_type_diet#original_research and it remains gone [1]. I was even thanked for removing this by the editor that initially reverted my change: [2]. So that's it, that's one of the reasons I should be blocked, removing uncited pseudoscience from wikipedia? Strains the limit of good faith. 71.112.7.212 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's too bad you show no ability to grow

You really don't seem to understand why nobody supports you, why you are basically an army of one fighting everybody else, and that's too bad. Your are well-schooled in how to edit Wiki, that I imagine you went "anonymous" for similar reasons, and existed here under another name. Because your IP has less than 500 edits, yet you know how to insert things, where to go for ANI, edit summaries, etc. What this shows indicates is you are more interested in bothering people, trolling, and being disruptive than actually trying to make a contribution. What a shame; I'm glad I'm not that way. I can only hope I'm wrong in thinking that when you come back, you'll still think you've done nothing wrong, despite the 10+ people who are all in agreement about your unacceptable behavior. You haven't found a single person to defend you - don't you wonder why? Probably not. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. --David Shankbone 01:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to taunt me. Is this all because I pointed out that your photo is not an afro? Jeez. I thought the point was to make wikipedia accurate. 71.112.7.212 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd defend him. Your Photo is not an Afro and the repeat rv you did on the page when he was trying to remove comments that he obviously regretted making show your bad faith in the whole ordeal. I've had to go through horrible Wikipedians because I choose to edit from an anon IP. I really hate this place now because of certain editors. --209.137.175.59 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And I am sure that there are many who hate this place because of you. Self-righteousness is never excusable, the less so when it comes from an anon IP. Have the courage of y0our convictions and come out into the sunlight. Most cockroaches don't, so prove you are not one of those disease carrying vermin. Jeffpw 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of one week for your disruptive edits. Being bold does not include being reckless, and removal of talk page comments and article content is vandalism. Unsourced statements in articles should be marked with a {{fact}} tag, not removed without discussion. The only exception to this is articles on living people. And removal of others' talk page comments, as you did here, is always vandalism and will not be tolerated. Kafziel Talk 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

kafziel, please remember to assume good faith, mediawiki isn't perfect. the appropriate thing to do would have been to tell me about the edit. also, i'd ask that you please do not insert unreferenced paragraphs, 9 months is long enough for something to remain unreferenced. one more thing -- if you spot editors calling one another trolls, that you point out the civility and no personal attack policies to them.
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Please be careful when editing other peoples pages not to remove other peoples content.

Request handled by: HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Miss Understood.

You have to actually fill out the AfD yourself and provide reasoning. See WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. You can fill it out here.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As I just found out, an anonymous user can't create pages, including AfD pages. Why are you trying to delete Miss Understood? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked longterm

Warning This IP address has been blocked for a period of 8 months, due to extensive wikistalking, harassement, vandalism, and editwarring through the use of multiple IP addresses. The IPs in question have a repeated block history.

⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)