User talk:74.73.106.239

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Nancy Reagan page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Nancy Reagan

No I am cleaning up the article from anons like yourself who have flooded it with poor info, POV, and vandalism! Please stop! Happyme22 (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you to stop for the good of this article. There is nothing POV about the page; it is very neutral. Happyme22 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

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 that gains a consensus among editors. Jmlk17 08:34, 24 December 2007 (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 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. Jmlk17 08:53, 24 December 2007 (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.

{{unblock|As you suggested, I tried several times to discuss this issue on HappyTalk22's talk page, my own talk page, as well as by requesting the article be locked from changes. I don't believe this was a fair block and as you undid my edits and not HappyTalk22's edits to the Nancy Reagan page, that this block itself is based in bias.}}

Y

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

It looks as though you did in fact try to discuss the changes with others. I'll unblock you, but please keep in mind that discussion and reaching an agreement comes before editing the article. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so there is no rush.

Request handled by: GlassCobra 09:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Y

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

See my comments below, further reverting will result in the block being reimposed. --B (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: B (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like GlassCobra had intended to unblock you but did not. Considering that, considering Happyme22's statement that he overreacted [1], and considering that the blocking admin appears to have been a party to the dispute, I am willing to unblock you ... HOWEVER it needs to be with the understanding that any further reverts or partial reverts will result in the block being reimposed. Does that sound reasonable? (Once you post here that agree not to continue reverting, I will remove the block.) --B (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It does sound reasonable. I will agree to discuss the wording of the second paragraph on the Nancy Reagan article on it's discussion page before making any edits.
  • I will not, however, agree to allow HappyTalk22 to continue to dominate over this article. While it is wonderful that he put work into the article, it only goes to fact that his behavior is at least in part territorial and motivated in bias. This is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not just the person who put research into the article (for which we are all obviously sincerely grateful). You can also check the list of other articles on which he has worked to see that most of the articles in his domain are on Republicans or Right Wing themes...nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does go to show potential for bias in his manipulation of this article.
  • If you (or anybody else) check the recent history of the Nancy Reagan article, several other posters and cited sources have also suggested that the China Pattern Incident was minor and not the main reason that the First Lady was criticized; and that the article as written is somewhat misleading. The criticism of her First Lady-ship was due to her extravagant nature during a time of economic decline in the nation, which is cited clearly in the article below. The first paragraphs should be a summary, no?
  • I am suggesting again that Featured Articles are more stable than this one has proven to be. Lastly, I am wondering why he has not been blocked, considering that he states that "as someone without a unique user name he will give me no respect" and here [2] I have politely asked about making what I feel to be necessary changes to this article without any response by him. He continues to dominate over this article.
Thank you, in advance for seeing that I am only interested in conforming to Wikistandards as best possible in a civil manner.74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes, you should just take yes for an answer and not talk yourself out of the unblock.  ;) Please civilly and without accusations discuss the changes you wish to make. I looked at the article edits repeatedly and couldn't figure out what the dispute was over - you guys seemed to just be rearranging sentences without changing the text. He is right to a certain degree about one thing - yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but if you are going to stay for a while and be a regular editor, having a username is really a good idea. It's not required by any stretch of the imagination - but there are a lot of people that, right or wrong, will look more suspiciously on IP edits. Even if you just wanted to name yourself User:Former7473 or something like that, having a user name is helpful. It also lets you set preferences, doesn't show you cached pages (so the page you see will always be up to date), lets you use scripts and other editing tools, and (after a period of time) will let you edit semi-protected pages because you will be recognized as not being a vandal. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. --B (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. And what of HappyTalk22's dominance over this article and his continued reverting of any edits with which he does not agree? Why has he not been blocked as I was?74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome message

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (74.73.106.239) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --B (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nancy Reagan, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Nancy Reagan was changed by 74.73.106.239 (c) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2007-12-24T15:33:35+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Specifically, this edit is unacceptable. When the block expires, please try to cool it down a few levels. An article doesn't have to be an attack piece to be neutral. --B (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, douche, but an article DOES have to be neutral. Happyme22 has consistently been aggressiv in keeping the Nancy Reagan article skewed towards her favor. If you check that article's talk page, you will see several admissions by him that he IS clearly in her favor, and that his edits to her article are aggressive in such a manner that there should be no question of his bias. That you (and other adtiors/administrators) have been so lax in blocking him for making non-NPOV edits to her articleonly goes to prove -again- that Wikipedia is nothing more than a media manipulated brainwashing machine. Fuck you, Wikipedai, you just lost a user ever.