User talk:71.75.202.139

September 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to South Carolina Gamecocks football, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: South Carolina Gamecocks football was changed by 71.75.202.139 (u) (t) deleting 9401 characters on 2009-09-22T03:34:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Your non-neutral POV edits to South Carolina Gamecocks football have been removed again. I don't know if you are a fan of a rival team or a disgruntled USC supporter, but there is no room on Wikipedia for someone with an obvious agenda of negativity. You have exposed yourself as having such an agenda with your repeated addition of edits containing POV terms like "loser", "inept" and your continued allusion to people chanting "limpdicks" at a single game, with no primary source to support such claims. Consider this your warning for edit warring by your continued attempts to add this non-notable POV material. If you believe you have a justifiable reason for adding this material, take it to the article's Talk page and seek consensus for the edits, otherwise your next addition of this same material will again be removed and you will be reported for edit-warring and violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at South Carolina Gamecocks football. 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.

The complete report is at WP:AN3#User:71.75.202.139 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is grossly unfair for GarnetAndBlack to report me as an edit warrior when it is GarnetAndBlack who hasn't added any substance to the article lately and continues to delete my various contributions and revert the article to his/her preferred version. GarnetAndBlack's behavior seems to fit the definition of an edit warrior more than me. My contributions have been intended to make the article more realistic and less one-sided, so why should GarnetAndBlack's deletions and reverts be rewarded? If GarnetAndBlack does not like my contributions, shouldn't he/she take it up on the discussion page first? To immediately report me as an edit warrior instead seems to be more about squelching me than building consensus. It is clear that GarnetAndBlack maintains the article as his/her personal property and will not allow anyone to add something he/she doesn't personally like. For example, other users have added back things I wrote, but then GarnetAndBlack will delete/revert. I even started a section in the discussion page to question GarnetAndBlack's disruption of valid contributions. So, I request to be unblocked because I have not vandalized nor continuously written bad things. I believe my contributions, on the whole, have made the article better despite what GarnetAndBlack has led the blocking administrator to believe. Shouldn't the validity of my contributions be tested by the wikipedia community instead of just one user named GarnetAndBlack?

Decline reason:

Read WP:NOTTHEM and try again. Jayron32 06:18, 8 January 2010 (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 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.