User talk:98.204.228.159

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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 without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.204.228.159) 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 this page. Again, welcome! Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm Qed237. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I provided the FIFA official reference on every edit. I'm right and you are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk • contribs)

There is no right and wring here (and I am definately not wrong). That sentence has been using this FIFA source which clearly states 16 goals in text. I will not put it back until there has been a proper discussion about this with several editors and there are more reliable sources for the stats. Since it is obvious FIFA has written different things we need to find out what other sources say and have a proper discussion before changing anything. QED237 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also please do not threaten other editors what to do, or not to do. It will come back like a boomerang and may have you blocked. Keep a good tone and assume good faith when talking to other editors. QED237 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was 16 revised to 15. Look at the box score. 15. I am right

It is not stated anywhere when the statistics page is revised after the matchday (if even revised). Sometimes mistakes in statistics are not corrected. Please give some proof that FIFA stated that there were 15 saves instead of 16. Anyway, it would remarkable if FIFA came back from the text on 2 July in which they talk about "16 saves". Kareldorado (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

response to edit summary

Re your edit summary in (this edit) ... being right or wrong is completely irrelevant to the reason for the warning. If you continue to make personal attacks and continue to not assume good faith by other editors, you will be blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith? I have all the evidence on my side and that guy change everything back on his own whim. I don't care about etiquette or WP rules. I just want the pages to be accurate. Good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 December 2014‎

If you wish to edit on Wikipedia, you will need to abide by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If you ignore them, make personal attacks and continue being generally uncivil, you will be blocked and prevented from editing articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring all the rules. That's a wikipedia pillar. The fact is I HAVE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG and that jerk kept reverting the accurate edits. Block him. So I cusse him out about it. He deserved it. Now move along and get a life. I'm done here. I made the ACCURATE EDITS that ARE NOT IN DISPUTE and I expect them to stay that way. You're not my boss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 December 2014‎

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, 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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:02, 24 December 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).

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

Request reason:

WHY IS THIS ACCOUNT BLOCKED? I HAVE EDITED THIS WIKI TO BE MORE ACCURATE THAN IT WAS. SURE I YELLED AT THE GUY WHO KEPT REVERTING BUT HE WAS WRONG AND I HAVE PROVED THIS WITHOUT A DOUBT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES. NOW THIS BAREK GUY IS BLOCKING ME? I HAVEN'T HARASSED HIM, HAVE I? I HAVE HARASSED NO ONE. i HAVE MADE NO IMPROPER EDITS. MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE MY TONE BUT FRANKLY I DON'T CARE. IT'S LIKE THE "A FEW GOOD MEN" LINE WHERE YOU EXPECT FREEDOM (ACCURATE PAGES) BUT YOU QUESTION THE MANNER IN WHICH I PROVIDE IT (SO I YELLED AT A GUY WHO KEPT MAKING BAD EDITS, WHO CARES). THIS BLOCK IS UNWARRANTED. I HAVE NOT BEEN DISRUPTIVE. DID I CUSS OUT A GUY WITH ONE EDIT? YES. DID I DO ANYTHING ELSE TO HURT THIS WEBSITE? NOT AT ALL.

Decline reason:

Your abusive edits and your abusive edit summaries combine to make you unwelcome and this block completely justifiable. You probably should go somewhere else if you're not willing to abide by our standards of etiquette and collegiality. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:43, 24 December 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.

What they say about Wikipedia is right. It's a mob mentality. I don't give a shit about your rules. I do what is right. What is right is making the edits that correct infactual information. You don't think I'm justified in getting pissed off because some jerk kept reverting 100% VALID EDITS? Seriously wikipedia, you are full of yourself. Etiquette? Secondary. Primary goal is to get articles right and I did that. You are idiots for blocking me but not blocking the editor who kept reverting to infactual information.

November 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! JQTriple7 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Recent edit to Google Hangouts

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It is certainly significant that google is removing the functionality that is the primary purpose of the app. I won't keep editing the page, but you are WRONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 January 2016‎

We need sources for content. It might be true, but sources are necessary to support content. This is an encyclopaedia. Your style of editing is usually disruptive. I suggest you read up on how we do things around here. As a courtesy I've added a reference myself. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I make lots of small, non-disruptive edits. Your accusations are baseless and you are an asshole. Seriously, look at my fucking edit history. Show the pattern of disruptive edits. I don't take it lightly when you accuse me of untrue shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 January 2016‎

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have made no abusive edits. Please review my edit history and point out specific examples. Quite simply, you are a liar. This block is why people hate wikipedia. It's a dictatorship now. Someone needs to oversee your abusive toward editors. Did I hurt your wittle feewings on this page? I don't care. It was in response to being told I make disruptive edits. I do not. Look at the history. I am right, and it isn't even subjective.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have made no abusive edits. Please review my edit history and point out specific examples. Quite simply, you are a liar. This block is why people hate wikipedia. It's a dictatorship now. Someone needs to oversee your abusive toward editors. Did I hurt your wittle feewings on this page? I don't care. It was in response to being told I make disruptive edits. I do not. Look at the history. I am right, and it isn't even subjective. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have made no abusive edits. Please review my edit history and point out specific examples. Quite simply, you are a liar. This block is why people hate wikipedia. It's a dictatorship now. Someone needs to oversee your abusive toward editors. Did I hurt your wittle feewings on this page? I don't care. It was in response to being told I make disruptive edits. I do not. Look at the history. I am right, and it isn't even subjective. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have made no abusive edits. Please review my edit history and point out specific examples. Quite simply, you are a liar. This block is why people hate wikipedia. It's a dictatorship now. Someone needs to oversee your abusive toward editors. Did I hurt your wittle feewings on this page? I don't care. It was in response to being told I make disruptive edits. I do not. Look at the history. I am right, and it isn't even subjective. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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.