User talk:97.112.206.67

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your host, 97-112-206-67.dthn.centurylink.net (97.112.206.67), is registered to Century Link Communications LLC - Dothan, Alabama, USA and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.

Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.

If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Kompress0 (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

RAS Syndrome. Again[edit]

Though you're editing from this IP now, all previous warnings and blocks from your previous IP apply. That said, you were specifically told seven days. There were no comments during that time and so the tag was removed. Otherwise, nothing has changed, if you wish to challenge that entry, you need to do so per the policies and guidelines of this project. You can't just continue to repeatedly and arbitrarily remove that content. It's still considered edit warring, which you should be aware of by now, and if you continue this disruption, you will be reported again and likely blocked again. - wolf 01:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made a valid case against the entry. There's just bias regarding new users vs established users. 97.112.206.67 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 02:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added note[edit]

(edit conflict)This is the very behaviour that you were blocked twice is as many days for by C.Fred and Daniel Case (under 97.112.217.211). Why do you think that it would be any more acceptable now? When you agreed to the tag, you were specifically told seven days, which you were aware of, as evidenced by the fact that you showed back up just over a week later. There was no responses, and therefore no sourcing or consensus to supoort your edit. Since you apparently contribute nothing else to this project, your behaviour is net-negative, and perhaps it's time for you to move on to some other hobby. That said, I've already stated that if you wish to re-add the tag for some more time to see if it will solicit any comments, then go ahead. But otherwise you need to stop with the continual disruptive editing of that page. - wolf 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have continued despite the previous block, I have partially blocked you from editing the RAS syndrome page. To be unblocked, admins would need to be assured that you have an understanding of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This is not okay. Continuing down that path will likely lead to your partial block being changed to site-wide. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 13 November 2022 (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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:97.112.206.67 reported by User:Jacona (Result: ). Thank you. Jacona (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've already been reported for edit warring. Do you really think that reverting my edit without a valid reason was a good idea? M.Bitton (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have a valid reason for editing it in the first place. The hypocrisy here knows no bounds, edit warring always takes two.

Instead of being contentious and petty, how about working towards a resolution on the article's talk page. 97.112.206.67 (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without a source, there is nothing to talk about. M.Bitton (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already sourced and C. Fred didn't agree

But if that's the logic here, I don't want to hear a word or see a single reversion if I go on a tear deleting unsourced material from thousands of articles. 97.112.206.67 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2022 (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.