Jump to content

User talk:96.38.173.3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.38.173.3 (talk) at 14:16, 7 May 2011 (Keeping an deye on right wing hysteria). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am dedicated to revising the hysterical nonsense in the rothschild article. andyone with productivew suggestionsis welcome to make them

I am dedicated to keeping an eye on right wing bias and racism. If you have productive assistance to me, please post here. If you have unfair and immature remarks, please refrain from attacking me, as various Judophobic and other immature editors have in history.

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rothschild family, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 14:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rothschild family, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Talkback

Hello, 96.38.173.3. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 96.38.173.3. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 15:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 96.38.173.3. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 96.38.173.3. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 96.38.173.3. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You have been warned several tines. The edits which you are removing are not racist. If you persist in your current activity you will be blocked from editing here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptively removing material from the Rothschild family article with a very dubious explanation of "racism". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild family

I understand you feel you are clearly right and everyone else is clearly wrong, but you have a responsibility to explain in careful detail exactly why you believe the material in the Rothschild family article (as it currently stands) is racist and poorly sourced. It is not good enough to say simply that existing material is "racist nonsense with very poor and discredited sources", or to summarily delete it by saying that "no explanation for deleting this racist nonsense is required" — and it is certainly not acceptable to delete an entire section (about the Rothschilds' views on Zionism) on the basis that the section "could potentially be the target of racists". Since the material would appear at first glance to be balanced and neutral, and the cited sources would seem to be legitimate and properly used, the burden is on you to show other editors that first appearances are wrong.

I would strongly recommend that once your current block expires and you are once again able to edit, you go to the article's talk page and calmly, carefully start explaining in detail exactly what you see as the problems with the current text. Assume other editors are acting in good faith, and attempt to achieve a consensus regarding what the article should or shouldn't say. Edit-warring with other editors, without any effort on your part to explain your position other than to suggest that it is self-evident and obvious, is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and continuing to operate in that fashion will simply get you blocked and deprive the community of whatever positive, productive contributions you might otherwise have been able to make here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Pro-life, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for for returning to your previous disruptive behavior as soon as the previous 1-month block expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was only blocked for 24 hours last time, not 3 monthsw. I believe the blocker saw that i hadnt edited in a month and assumed that i'd been blocked for 1 month the previous time.My actions may or may not have beengrounds for a block, but the three month block was on the incorrect grounds that I had been blocked for one month last time.

Decline reason:

Blocks are used to protect Wikipedia, and your actions consistently demonstrate that you are not here to edit constructively. Whatever the blocking editor's summary stated, 3 months is an appropriate length, and your own most recent edit summary emphasizes this. Favonian (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2011 (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.

-

(edit conflict)My sincere apologies -- I have no idea how I misread the block log like that. Reduced to one week, and leaving the appeal live.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.38.173.3&oldid=427914651"