User talk:68.114.130.234

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create 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 (68.114.130.234) 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! allen四names 19:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Crucifixion in art has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alan (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, 68.114.130.234. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alan (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. tedder (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

NPA says "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." and Harass says "Harassment is defined as a PATTERN of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target.". I have made exactly one non-egregious comment about a user, particularly that he was being passive aggressive and reading into the letter of the law without reading the spirit. As this is the first personal attack that I've made against a user, I understand if somebody wants to edit it out, and that's within the rights of whomever to do so according to Harass. However, there was no established pattern and my comment included legitimate talking points about the article but was reverted whole-hog anyway. Everything else I've said has been on topic. Even if I didn't agree with that particular user, I refrained from personally attacking him.

Decline reason:

I'm seeing a pattern of incivil comments, and your post below does not convince me you're likely to stop any time soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:05, 12 December 2009 (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.

In the unblock request, the user claims that there was only a single incident. Setting aside the fact that blocks are given for single incidents of egregious personal attacks, the claim is factually untrue and misleading. User is a single-purpose account that boasts of coming here from an external site that seeks to create drama here [1], has deleted page material [2], and has repeatedly directed incivility at multiple users [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are Wiki-Lawyering, and frankly if anybody is doing the harassing here, it's you. You have repeatedly minimized my arguments by claiming that I am Sockpuppeting, Meatpuppeting, and making personal attacks when I am attacking the material of the article and its source. 'You are passive aggressive' is not an egregious personal attack, and 'you didn't read what I wrote and you are being deliberately obtuse' isn't a personal attack at all. (Seriously, How is "You're deliberately not reading what I wrote" possibly offensive to anybody?) I didn't come here to create drama, I didn't claim that I did. I claimed that a particular website made me aware of something on wikipedia that I thought was wrongly included in an article. I've made legitimate criticisms, and my comments are directly responsible for the creation of the Crucifixion in Art page. I argued civilly enough and generated enough consensus among the majority of wiki users to remove the offending material from the original Crucifixion page and have it moved to a new page. When I got around to looking at that new page I found that it had not been cleaned up and contained questionable claims from an unreliable tertiary source, so I made an argument on the discussion page and removed the offending material. Because I didn't make an edit summary, I found my revision rather rudely reverted by a member of one of your user:groups. I reacted and Alan pointed out my mistake: a simple oversight by a novice user, one that might have been cleared up when I read Alan's talk page had you not immediately jumped in and made baseless claims against me. -- 68.114.130.234 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block shortened to 24h with consent of blocking admin. I don't feel it met "egregious personal attack" at all, but there is a tension level here that everyone involved would do well to calm down. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 12 December 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.