User talk:64.4.93.100

Stu Barnes

Talkback

Hello, 64.4.93.100. You have new messages at Ashbeckjonathan's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Though many patrollers are careless at least some apologize. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to pay attention next time when it comes to undoing vandalism. To me I thought it was vandalism. Now I know it was reasonable why you removed that section Wikiquotes from Jim Nantz. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your work supporting the WP:QUOTE guideline, removing miscellaneous quotes that belong on Wikiquote instead of Wikipedia. I checked a lot of your edits and I believe you were right to remove them. BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yum, thank you. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:64.4.93.100 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Both IPs blocked). Thank you. Ben^Yes? 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about quotes

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at the 3RR noticeboard (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't know about the talk pages so I gave my reasons in the edit summary. But the other person didn't give any reasons and didn't tell me why they were stalking me to undo all my edits so I didn't know what to do. After the report I found the talk pages and gave my reasons there instead of undoing the other person but you blocked me the next day while I was on holiday so now I can't go back and finish discussing. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock reason is essentially that you didn't know about talk pages, so you couldn't discuss your edits. However, you were responding to talk page messages about your disruptive editing at least as far back as 23 June, and continued to make huge numbers of the same kind of edits after that, so your claim is clearly without foundation. Also, after you had posted numerous times at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] you made several of the same kind of edits, so your pretence that you didn't know how to discuss the issues, and were blocked without being given a chance to do so is totally disingenuous. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (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 request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

The unblock request is supposed to put me on the list to be unblocked but I'm not there CAT:UNBLOCK why not? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table appears to be stuck as of three days ago and hasn't updated. I'll try and catch an admin's attention to flag the issue and get you unblocked. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table at the top of that page is not being updated for some reason, and that is being looked at; but you are in the actual list of "Pages in category" lower down the page, which is what admins usually check. There is a backlog, so it may take a little time before someone gets round to reviewing your request. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request for attention has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock notification not working. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston you are wrong, I did not file the report, BenHen1997 did. You also did not block the other person but only one of the several IPs they were using. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction; I removed the statement that you filed the 3RR. Let me ask you to explain why you've been removing so many quotes from articles. Your previous quote removals were mentioned in the 3RR report by User:Velella and User:David J Johnson. So while you were cited for breaking 3RR just on the Oona King article, you've been removing quotes for quite some time. In the last ten days of June, you triggered our section blanking edit filter 250 times. Do you think you got consensus somewhere to make these 250 removals? People who get flagged so many times by the edit filter are usually vandals. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal! Like the policy WP:NOT says lists of quotations do not belong on Wikipedia but should only be on Wikiquote. Even so I do not remove all quotation sections but leave ones that are justifiable like at Yogi Berra. I also remove stuff without sources from BLP articles because the notice at the top of the editing page says to do that. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.