User talk:99.144.250.128

August 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Susan Roesgen. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2009 (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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Susan Roesgen. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Mifter (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Unblock. Accuser is engaged in a campaign, I was also never notified and given a chance to defend myself[edit]

{{Unblock on hold|blocking administrator|The "evidence" Xenophrenic used against me includes edits in which I changed prose to conform to his complaints. It also includes 2 bots that reverted me in error because of "excessive white space tags" Note: the person who initiated the complaint against me is user Xenophrenic, an Edit Warrior[1] and has been sanctioned by ArbCom for past behavior.[2]. He is currently engaged in a campaign to remove referenced citations from the New York Times and Boston Globe from the Susan Roesgen article and is using false accusations to further his edit warring and personal vendetta. One which includes removing every edit of mine from various unrelated articles in my edit history.|Jac16888^Talk 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

A block so long after your last edit to the page seems unnecessary, will consult the blocking admin.--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the serious consideration. 99.144.250.128 (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to unblock you, and the blocking admin would have to agree to this, would you agree to the following. That for two weeks you will not edit Susan Roesgen, instead you will discuss changes on the talk page in a civil matter. Should you choose to edit the article during the two weeks I will not hesitate to block you again without warning, ditto for if you seem to be behaving in an uncivil manner. Furthermore, the limit of two weeks does not mean that upon those two weeks ending you will immediately go back to the page and start edit warring again, I will not hesitate to block you for that either. Do these terms seem acceptable to you?--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the victim here, I've added a dozen or more sincere, well supported, referenced edits from the NYT's and other high quality reliable sources. From the very first moment I've had every single comma, period and ref reverted on sight, usually with an attack. Notice that in Xeno's continuing campaign he accused me of[3] "So he resorted to attempts to have others continue the reverting, while the unresolved 3RR report hung over him. It's amazing. His claim is false. The editor I'm contacting runs a BOT[4], and the edit in question was an auto-revert by a bot.[5]. My request is for the bot owner to remove his error.

I'm not sure that accepting all blame and 100%fault is fair, honest or in the best interests of the Encyclopedia. 99.144.250.128 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the edits at all. I can see that you were edit warring with multiple editors. If you want the article changing, as I said garner consensus for it on the talk page, continuing as you were will simply result in more blocks. Hence the unblock requirements.--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin has agreed with these terms, if you promise to meet them (and doing so does not mean admitting you were 100% to blame), I can unblock you right away--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:38, 25 August 2009 (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.