User talk:74.77.222.188

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by CHawke.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Search away, jackass. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of three-revert rule. 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. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:24, 25 September 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 restored comments to a talk page that had been wrongfully deleted. The deletions had been described as vandalism by a third party. How can undoing vandalism be considered a violation of 3RR? Thank you for your time and consideration."

Decline reason: "Your edits were borderline vandalism, but 3RR precludes blocking for only obvious vandalism. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:03, 25 September 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.

How is someone repeatedly removing my comments from a Talk Page not obvious vandalism? 74.77.222.188 23:09, 25 September 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 don't understand. How is restoring my own comments to a talk page, comments that had been wrongfully deleted, a bannable offence? How is another user repeatedly deleting my talk page contributions not an example of obvious vandalism that I have every right to revert as many times as necessary? This is my last attempt to get this ban lifted. Please devote more time to considering the merits of my request than Animum did. I'm being banned for restoring my own comments to a talk page! Nothing more. This can't be right."

Decline reason: "3RR or not, talk pages are not a soap box. Both you and Callmebc (talk · contribs) have engaged in lengthy, acrimonious name-calling about some political subject and have edit-warred about your comments. For that disruption, you have both been briefly blocked, and will likely be blocked again, if you keep up that mode of discussion. — Sandstein 05:31, 26 September 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.

Fine, so I suppose the 3RR violation was just an excuse. Thanks for taking the time to examine my request and thanks for the explanation. 74.77.222.188 07:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my block was appropriate. All I did was restore my comments to a Talk Page that had been maliciously deleted by a single individual on multiple occasions. Other third party editors restored my comments as well, describing the deletions as vandalism. I don't think 3RR applies to undoing repeated vandalism. When the editor you're debating loses an argument and then attempts to delete the whole discussion because of sour grapes, I think the person doing the deleting is guilty of vandalism and ought to be banned. Not the editor who's letting the discussion stand as is. That's my take on the situation. 74.77.222.188 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It was more of the fact that it wasn't vandalism + over-reverting can be seen as disruption. We've blocked editors with good-faith reverts too. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the reply. 74.77.222.188 04:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Won't Get Fooled Again"

I'm getting a bit frustrated by your repeated reverting of my edits to The Who (i.e. my removal of the phrase "and the single "Won't Get Fooled Again" becoming the first hit single to be driven by a synthesiser track"). First of all, the keyboard part to "Won't Get Fooled Again" was played on an organ -- just because it uses the filters on a synthesizer doesn't make it a synth part, any more than if Roger Daltrey had applied the same filters to his voice. I think it's very misleading to call it a "synthesiser track", and at the very least there's some need for discussion on the topic -- all the more so because of the common misconception that the keyboard parts to this song and "Baba O'Riley" were made by synths, rather than by the Lowrey organ.

Second (and more importantly), whether or not "Won't Get Fooled Again" was "the first hit single to be driven by a synthesiser track", you absolutely need to cite sources if you're going to claim that, and you haven't cited anything. There are lots of other tracks that used synthesizer prior to "Won't Get Fooled Again", and so it's a very debatable issue; consequently, anyone who wants to remove that text can do so in the blink of an eye, because it doesn't cite any sources.

So what gives? Can you explain why are you insisting on keeping this text, and repeatedly reverting a good-faith edit? Goldenband (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping it because it's accurate. The backing tape to "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an organ processed through the filters of a synthesizer. That makes it a synthesizer track. Without the synthesizer, it wouldn't sound anything like that. Synthesizers process sounds. As for "Won't Get Fooled Again" being the first hit single driven by a synthesizer track, that is also true. If you know of a prior example, please provide it. I know your edit is in good faith. So is mine. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting referenced content

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 156.34.215.223 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How dare you accuse me of vandalism and threaten to ban me. I am following the rules of Wikipedia. Not all references are created equally. Some are reliable sources. Some are not. I will continue to delete content that is badly referenced, such as the absurd sources claiming 100 million albums sold for The Who and Deep Purple. See WP:RS. Also look at the Deep Purple talk page where the 100 million sales claim has been discussed and recommended for deletion.74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not CHAWKE, you idiot. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summary on The Who

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --> Ckessler (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment regarding the Beatles

"All of the Beatles studio albums went top ten in the USA." Not true. The Early Beatles, released by Capitol Records in 1965, only reached #43 on Billboard. Led Zeppelin's BBC Sessions is considerd a live album by Billboard and is therefore not counted as a studio album in the figures. HelenWatt (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --> Ckessler (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 156.34.235.69 (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Fair Deal (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at AC/DC. 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.

CIreland (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your comments on 156.34.x

Just a heads up regarding your comments like this: The user from the 156.34.x IP range is someone we call Libs. Libs chooses to edit anonymously for various reasons, but despite not having a registered account still has a long history of positive contributions to Wikipedia. Libs edits from a laptop while moving about in a library with many wireless routers, hence the numerous IPs from the same range (and the nickname). No one is trying to "fool" you. Given your somewhat controversial edits and mild hostility, I caution you to keep your cool and stay civil. If you have a problem with the references that are being used in articles citing album sales, why don't you do some research and replace them with better references? Instead of getting into conflicts because you are removing citations and violating the 3 revert rule, you could be replacing the "incorrect" information with something better and more accurate. Just a suggestion. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This may interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Wikiality 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the IP addresses belong to people who subscribe to Aliant high speed internet. (use the IP trace links if you want) Whenever someone connects to the internet, they have a different IP address with the service. So, when you leave messages on someone's talk page, it may be read by someone else. I just received a message and have no idea what it meant. Please be more considerate in the future, 74.77.222.188. 156.34.213.97 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album sales

Hi, you seem to have a serious, reoccuring issue with reverting sourced info on album sales. And judging by your talk page, its a long standing one. Can you (while remaining civil) point out anything at WP:RS or Wikipedia:Verifiability that has to do with "predating" or anything you keep claiming as reasons to revert album sales info, such as your repeated edits to AC/DC? Is it really productive to return nearly every day to revert the same things, over and over? Is there some cite you can find to replace these, or some way you can improve the info instead of reverting constantly? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)