User talk:203.129.61.83

reserved-61-83.grapevine.net.au, Transact, Canberra

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Kyoto Protocol. 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 (203.129.61.83) 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! Quibik (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Catholic Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't keep adding non-notable trivia, which has already been removed several times. Oscroft (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2010 (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.

That was a sentence (fully referenced) I was trying to add to an article with a neutrality warning. Instead of another perspective being included it was reverted and I am accused on vandalism. Is that article supposed to be a polemic?203.129.61.83 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence was of poor quality, badly placed in the article, and not of notability - just because you can reference something doesn't mean it is notable. Also, your actions in repeatedly reverting the changes others have made constitutes and edit war, and if you continue you will end up blocked. Oscroft (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop your edit-war. Discuss on the Talk page, listen to what others are saying, and wait for the consensus - you are currently in the minority, so please pay heed. Oscroft (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2010 (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.'

What you're calling vandalism and an edit war is an attempt to introduce neutrality into an article that is currently written as a polemic. You are persecuting me rather than fix the article. Some things never change with the Catholic Church.203.129.61.83 (talk)'

Adding derogatory terms for Catholics, and adding them in a very poor quality style and in an inappropriate place in the article, does not constitute adding "neutrality". Stop your edit war and deal with it properly on the Talk page. And as for your "You are persecuting me rather than fix the article. Some things never change with the Catholic Church." comment, I am not the Catholic Church, and not a Catholic - not even a Christian, in fact. Oscroft (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic is a widespread term, so is Rock Chopper in some countries. Calling them 'derogatory' is just an exampel of the 'poisoning the well' logical fallacy beloved by 'hide the POV' wiki editors. The main edit you are calling vandalism is my attempt to have child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy placed alongside abortion etc as a major issue facing teh Catholic Church. Instead of facing up to this the issue is pushed to the bottom of the article. Abortion etc are mentioned elsewhere also. Why not delete their initial mention. Because this article as currently written is an advertisment for the Catholic Church and not a neutral article about it.203.129.61.83 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument that the neutrality of the article is disputed. But the way to address it is in a calm, measured, and constructive manner, and not to see it as a fight - we're trying to develop an encyclopedia here, not conduct a religious war. Oscroft (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Catholic Church. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Stop using the article to attack the Catholic Church and to insult Catholics. if you do it again, you will be blocked Oscroft (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2010 (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.

I see-someone who wants to highlight sexual abuse of children is a major issue confronting the Catholic Church is accused of vandalism and will be blocked from wikipedia on your authority.203.129.61.83 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop getting emotional, pay some attention to what people are saying on the Talk page, and try to discuss these issues in a calm and measured manner. Oscroft (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must come back to you on this one with an apology, and strike the final warning. My reversion of your sexual abuse comment was wrong - I was sitting waiting for yet another re-reversion of the "Rock Chopper" comment, and I reverted your next change without realising that it didn't include Rock Chopper at all. So sorry about that (but I do think the suggestion to sit back a bit and talk disagreements over on the Talk page is still good advice). Oscroft (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing Thomas More article.85.240.23.88 (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your silly response to my highlighting that you've just tried to remove an entire paragraph from this article with multiple references including one to the Yale edition of Thomas More on the basis that they were anti-Catholic.203.129.61.83 (talk)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 h to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Catholic Church‎. 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. Andy Walsh (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, 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).

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

Request reason:

the article Catholic Church has a neutrality warning. At teh beginning of teh article there is a list of important issues fro teh modern Catholic church-abortion, birth control. I have been trying to add sexual abuse of children by catholic clergy as such an issue. It is a major issue confronting the Catholic church on every criteria of notability. Yet, I am persecuted and blocked. Oh well that just shows how the Catholic Church continues to operate.203.129.61.83 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for any particular material you wish to add; you're blocked for edit warring, which is strongly discouraged here. Please discuss your changes on the article talk pages and attempt to gain consensus for your changes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:58, 13 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.