User talk:66.225.161.37

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between an endorsement (i.e. somebody saying they will vote a certain way) and somebody expressing an opinion about an issue (i.e. somebody saying that the proposal will be good or bad for their particular area of expertise). I am acting in good faith: earlier today I removed the addition of Michael O'Leary as somebody endorsing a yes vote, because he did no such thing. All he did was to endorse one of the policies the SNP have said would be implemented if Scotland becomes independent and they are elected (namely, cutting Air Passenger Duty). For all you or I know, the various retired generals may be in favour of Scottish independence for other reasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this before editing the page again, otherwise it may be construed as edit warring. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please engage on the article talk page and resolve this constructively. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy standoff

I made a copyedit to make a paragraph more readable and concise, and I left out the Utah Territory detail because it didn't seem relevant. You put back Utah Territory because you think it's relevant, which is fine, but you also reverted the rest of my edit. This is a minor issue, and normally I would just restore the minor copyediting while leaving Utah Territory intact, but the article's 1 revert rule forces me to discuss this with you instead. If you have no problem with the rest of my edit, could you please restore it? KinkyLipids (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Violation of 1RR restrictions on Bundy standoff listed here. 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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:16, 29 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is horseshit. At least indicate which edit is in question, instead of taking the word of NorthbySouthBaranof as gospel, you twit. You can't justify your block, because I didn't violate the 1RR. Meatpuppet! You were victimised by a brown-noser. 66.225.161.37 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, you did violate the editing restrictions. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 30 April 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.

Why aren't you friendly. 1 revert, 2 reverts. Tiptoety ^talk 03:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this issue has been taken up on User talk:Tiptoety. 66.225.161.37 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Reductio ad Hitlerum‎, you may be blocked from editing. McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 1 May 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.

Reference Errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Amherstburg page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Your statement that there is a "derisory amount of land" is unsupported personal opinion. Moreover, you have not provided any source which discusses the amount of land managed by the BLM in the Eastern States in the context of the Bundy standoff - which makes it original synthesis. Unless there is a source which relates the two together, we cannot do so independently. Please refrain from inserting personal opinion, original research and synthesis into Wikipedia articles. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I've sourced your blm page for greater certainty. I was unsurprised to find that you are an "Alaskan Vandal/Government Employee".

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:66.225.161.37 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this issue has been taken up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:66.225.161.37 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ) 66.225.161.37 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violation of 1RR on the same article for a second time. 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 10 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

BlackKite has not justified his assertion that the SPLC is not a fringe source, as per the definition of reliable sources; s/he only asserts that "the SPLC is of course a reliable source" or something to that effect. That's a laughable position. How is the SPLC (a lobby) to be distinguished from other lobbies that are unacceptable to the "accepted" or "consensus" politics of wikipedians? Is this a matter of "nonprofit" status? Or "civil rights" status? Or what, exactly? # Currently, the block policy is overbroad. Blocked users are prevented from discussions on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, a censorship of debate that is simply too much. # Should a user who violates the 1RR rule on a specific page be disciplined by blocking his contributions to the entire wiki? or only the contributions to the page that pertain to the 1RR page? This seems overbroad too. I'm surprised that wiki technology hasn't yet been tailored for this sort of thing. # BlackKite has not addressed my contention that the petitioner has been paid by the federal government to edit the Bundy standoff page (amongst others). Is there a separate app for that? 66.225.161.37 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request because it does not address the reason for the block. You are blocked for repeatedly reverting, not for making edits that were unjustified, so explaining why you think your edits were justified is off the point. Arguing that Wikipedia policies are not good is also off the point, because your request will be assessed according to Wikipedia policies as they currently stand, not as you or I or anyone else thinks they should be. Making accusations against other editors in an unblock request is virtually certain to result in failure of that request (as you probably already know, if you took the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before making the request) because whether your block should be lifted is assessed according to what you have done, irrespective of any merits or demerits of anyone else's actions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 12 May 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 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).

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

Request reason:

I have read JamesBWatson's reasons, and accept the reasons as valid within their context. This goes to underline my observations. I'm not interested in debating this block except with respect to them. Paid political hacks like NorthbySouthBaranof will continue to be at an advantage because they are skilled at initiation of debate control measures like this, which is a shame for wikipedia, really. And I'm glad that I have this forum which appears to require experienced wiki editors to respond for the balance of my seven day block. :) 66.225.161.37 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have still not addressed the 1RR violation that led to your block. Please note that misusing these block templates to make statements rather than actually requesting an unblock can and will result in the loss of talk page privileges for the duration of your block, if you continue. -- Atama頭 18:34, 12 May 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.

No, you don't have what you call a "forum" in which other Wikipedians are obliged to respond to anything you wish to post: what you had was an opportunity to address the reasons for the unblock, and to give reasons why the block might be reviewed. It is clear from what you said in your last use of the unblock request template that you knew full well that it was not an unblock request. Moreover, you have explicitly stated that you plan to continue to deliberately misuse the unblock request template. Therefore, in order to prevent you from wasting administrators' time with further phony "unblock requests", your talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:36, 13 May 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.