User talk:71.252.45.213

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Cleveland Browns has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Gail (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Eva Braun constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Gail (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Dan Quayle. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Gail (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's insulting to replace someone's profile image by that of a toilet? Gail (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is an encyclopaedia, not your next graffiti wall. Gail (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the above three warnings is templated... I didn't write them myself. And, humour or not, it wasn't a nice thing to do, considering that this encyclopaedia is viewed by millions. Gail (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because a fraction of the vandalism is missed, and when that happens, it's not the first time that the incident gets picked up by the media, to the detriment of Wikipedia's reputation. This is the result of what was probably meant as a harmless joke, just like yours. How would you feel if we were to get a news headline "Wikipedia promotes former US vice president to a toilet seat"? Would it make you proud? Gail (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And one of the ways we try to prevent that from happening is by being stern with people like you. Oh, by the way, the final warning below is serious. I would advise you not to target any more well-known and famous; ~~however, if you want to go ahead and see what happens, be my guest :)~~ Gail (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have scolded you if you hadn't tried to excuse yourself, and I still find it irresponsible that others have encouraged your behaviour by condoning your jokes, irrespective of their perceived harmlessness. Gail (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I've shown you my stance on the matter, you know who to avoid :) Unless you decide to contribute positively, in which case, feel free to contact me again. Gail (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my comments and clearly fail to understand basic policy. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Joking on a talk page has little to no impact, adding malicious edits to the article is vandalism plain and simple. Q ^{T C} 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 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! --SineBot (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Scotiabank Place. Gail (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fame

Sorry, there will be no fame. Vandals dont get any. Q ^{T C} 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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. Q ^{T C} 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Just another friendly reminder to sign your comments on talk pages. Q ^{T C} 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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. – iridescent 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.252.45.213 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This was done as part of a personal dispute. My vandalism stopped after my final warning.

Decline reason:

No wikilawyering out of the block; final warnings, level 3 warnings aren't compulsory, blocks are at the administrator's discretion. And, given you show no remorse, nor excuse for your actions, the block stands. Woody (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.252.45.213 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I might not have shown explicit remorse, but I did show respect in that my vandalism came to an abrupt halt. And you cannot deny that the only reason a block came down on me was through a civil yet personal dispute, which whether you like it or not, is not an acceptable reason to block someone under wikipedia policy. By rule, the administrator discretion was incorrect. It would have been accepatable had I been banned as a result of pure vandalism. But it was not severe enough to cause a ban or else I would have been banned after it occured. However, there was a pause for personal dispute and that is when the illegal ban took place.

Decline reason:

Not only can I deny this line of reasoning, but I do. Contributions show two things: 1) vandalism, 2) trying to call vandalism an edit dispute (i.e., soft trolling). And, of course, more wikilawyering. Next time, try doing something useful to the encyclopedia, and you won't get blocked. — The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.252.45.213 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The Evil Spartan has made an uninformed misinterpretation. I never called vandalism an edit dispute. I do not deny my vandalism nor the fact that it should have been deleted. Read my conversations with Gale and Q. But the vandalism stopped for an extended period of time after warning, showing that I did not warrent a ban, and then only was blocked as part of a personal theological dispute with Q, in which I was not unruly and did not deny my guilt. And where does it say that "wikilawyering" is illegal?

Decline reason:

A 24 hour block is very reasonable considering how disruptive you've been. — PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

OK. Perhaps I could restate this. You're blocked for sockpuppetry and additional vandalism (User:Talldude18), personal attacks, being a general pain in the ass. Does that work? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as regards that "long period of time" between you being disruptive and being blocked, this edit was what prompted your block three minutes later. – iridescent 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Spartan made my day. It's all about straight talk baby.

You have been blocked for a period of one week from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.252.45.213 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While I clearly have a history of vandalism, this particular edit was taken out of context. If an informed Oakland, CA resident were to review it, they would understand that my edit was factually accurate.

Decline reason:

There is no acceptable context for that edit. — Kevin (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.