User talk:64.110.233.61

March 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Jackfork. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fort Montgomery (Lake Champlain) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Jackfork (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fort Montgomery (Lake Champlain). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Woerich (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fort Montgomery (Lake Champlain), you may be blocked from editing. Jackfork (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Fort Montgomery (Lake Champlain). Woerich (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

blocked for removing reference to an american civil war criminal as a *hero* by a overzealous editor who wants to Americanize history, he should not ever have HERO next to his name, that is a personal point of view and not wiki worthy

Decline reason:

You were repeatedly asked to stop edit warring, but you continued edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2020 (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.

No, you were blocked for being disruptive: edit warring and repeatedly inserting your own point of view into the article despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. Woerich (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

criminal* General Richard Montgomery" line to simply "Revolutionary War General, Richard Montgomery", and puting a plea in the tok page of the article to ask people to stop referring to him as a hero, highlighting some reasons why the opposite could also be said of him in the hopes that people might finally get that both extremes are biased and maybe consider keeping it to the neutral description, unfortunately to my dismay that was not to be and within a few minutes, the neutral "Revolutionary War General, Richard Montgomery" was reverted back to include hero again (with the justification being "in the eyes of his men", and providing a source for that apparent opinion in "Shelton, Hal (1994). General Richard Montgomery and the American Revolution. New York: New York University Press. p154" having looked into that source, while it is likely quite relevant for referencing the events of Montgomery's life, it falls under (WP:partisan) as it is written with a clear bias towards glorifying the actions of America and Montgomery, for example boasting over the sacking of St. John and Montreal, and bemoaning the death of Montgomery at the hands of the men defending Quebec from his assault. I feel that that reference should just be removed from the page altogether as it isn't used to reference any facts relevant to Fort Montgomery. And if there does need to be a description of the feelings of the men that Montgomery led in battle towards their aforementioned leader, then that should be something discussed in the wiki page about the man himself not the fort that bears his name. This edit that reverted my neutral point of view phrasing back to the (WP:PEA) hero, also coincided with my ban that I am currently appealing, although looking at the current areticle, it seems someone took my talk page request to heart and set the line to a much better and more accurate but still neutral "Civil War soldier Major General Richard Montgomery", and it appears that no one had a problem with his revision as it has stood for over a week now, so while i apologize for being childish with the reversion warring and i wont do it again, and I know my ban will end on its own anyway soon but I kinda wanna get it lifted while im still at my pc so i can take out that dead reference thats still hanging around in that article, its getting to my ocd :P

Decline reason:

You had been blocked for making disruptive edits, and came back with a disruptive request; I'm blocking you again to prevent this from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2020 (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.

April 2020[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2020 (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 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.