User talk:71.174.133.249

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abomination of Desolation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This same material has been added by two different IP addresses, and has been reverted by three different editors. It's now up to you to get consensus before re-adding it. It's also up to you to demonstrate that this text is worth keeping. Right now the consensus is clearly running against you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked for a discussion on the talk page and nobody has stepped up. Isn't that some sort of breach in your code of conduct?

I mean deleting stuff and then not bothering to respond to questions on exactly what your objections is, then bringing in a second person that does the same thing, seems to be NOT conststructive conduct.If you want to enter into a discussion on the topic I am more then willing to do so. Please use the article talk page.71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Abomination of Desolation. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added exactly 2 links to the article. One to a book and the other to the website of an author of a book. Sad to say they are not in wikipedia so I had to use an external link. perhaps when Wikipedia has enough money to get a hold of all the books in existence that will change.

The talk page material is for anyone willing to engage in the discuss portion of the revert/discuss portion of the cycle. or don't you want me to point out my side of the story'?71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2017 (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. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised. When you can't discuss something because you don't have a leg to stand on, you attempt to shut the other guy up. A standard underhanded debate technique. If you are a Christian you just failed the "treat others as you would like to be treated" test.

BTW: Have you reported yourself fir edit warring as well?71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (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:71.174.133.249 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ). Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2017 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

Edit Warring was started by another party

Decline reason:

Doesn't matter who started it, and it doesn't matter how much or how fervently you argued on the talk page; you've so far failed to get consensus for your desired changes, and as such you should not insert them into the article, and you must not edit war about it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:09, 4 December 2017 (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.

Tgeorgescu who reported me was the one who started the edit war. Despite repeated efforts by myself to get him to engage in the discuss portion of revert/discuss he repeatedly ignored my requests and acted like a vandal.

When he finally decided to engage in discussion he continued refused to answer simple questions stating that the reason he objected to my edits (with citations) was because the subject was "fictional". A strange objection since the article was created some time ago and he does not seem to have any issue with similar content.

I believe there is more reason to block him then to block me.

Consider this a request to block Tgeorgescu since I can't report his conduct anywhere else after the block.71.174.133.249 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following are cut and paste of his objections.

BTW: What the hell kind of reason is, you can't post this material because the guy was fictional? Is this a wiki policy? are you going to delete any material on King Artur and Camelot?

Daniel wasn't a real person, so he did not have a lifetime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

From Ivy Plus to US state universities professors teach that Prophet Daniel never existed. So, that's Wikipedia's view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

71.174.133.249 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Is Tgeorgescu 71.174.133.249 (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Oh, It was all Tgeorgescu!! Why didn't you say so! Not. You need to reread the guide to appealing blocks. Especially the part about blaming others. This combative attitude does not give one hope that you will cease from edit warring. Own it, apologize for it, affirm you won't do it again, affirm what you will do instead. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2017 (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.

Is Tgeorgescu also getting blocked for starting this or is this a "screw the newbie" kind of deal?

If this was an Edit WAR then what about the guy who started that WAR?

Since you may have missed my second post, I would like to know what kind of an objection is "You can't add this material because this guy (who is already reference many times in the article) is fictional?" Please confirm by going to the article in question and checking how many times the name Daniel already appears in it.

Daniel wasn't a real person, so he did not have a lifetime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

From Ivy Plus to US state universities professors teach that Prophet Daniel never existed. So, that's Wikipedia's view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)71.174.133.249 (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the links that people have provided you? Here's what one of them says, in case it wasn't clear.

You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did. For this reason:

Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator. Disagreements with others should be addressed through dispute resolution after you are unblocked, but your unblock request is not the place for this. The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Wikipedia or why you will no longer do so. Unblock requests that contain personal attacks or incivility against others will be declined and may lead to being blocked from your talk page.

Is it your belief that you have followed this dictum? Please note that I am asking a yes-or-no question here. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am confused and need advise 71.174.133.249 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your third pointless unblock request. I have revoked your talk page access for the duration of the block. Yamla (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2017 (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.

RE:Own it, apologize for it, affirm you won't do it again, affirm what you will do instead.

I OWN adding new material to wikipedia When that material was deleted I OWN reverting it and asking for the discussion phase of the revert discuss cycle. REPEATEDLY - thus the multiple reverts

Should I apologize for adding material ? Should I apologize for REPEATEDLY asking for the discuss portion of revert/discuss?

Should I affirm I won't add material to Wikipedia again? Should I affirm that I won't ask for a discussion with another editor again?

What should I do instead? Enlighten me! I would like to know.

and again

I continue to notice that Tgeorgescu who started this edit war cycle, has not also been banned and has not even gotten a warning on his website.

Please enlighten me as to this double standard.

and also again. If you need a request to start the process and either ban or warn him about not engaging in an edit war. I am requesting that these actions be taken, or is equality before the law (your policies) just a a nice front hiding a black core?71.174.133.249 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2017 (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.