User talk:195.212.52.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Rob right.
Please refer to [[1]] for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Manchester page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oldelpaso 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to BBC. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Raven4x4x 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Manchester, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Can I also make it clear that claiming a counter edit as "vandalism" [2] is wholly unhelpful, and a breach of WP:CIVIL.

If you edit the article to the same effect again, I will be required to report you as a distruptive [[edit warrer, which will likely see your accounts (IPs) blocked, and the article protected.

Your sources are also in breach of WP:RS - one is a weak Asian newspaper, the other is an American article from twelve years ago; they do not claim consensus, and are secondary sources. As such, you'll likely see these removed by the editting community. Jza84 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manchester. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please contribute to the Talk Page before further edits or Reversions Mike33 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other members of the editing community without partisan interests in promoting Manchester view such edits as perfecly acceptable and substantiated source. [3] Please do not try and intimidate me whilst using Wikipedia195.212.52.6 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to intimidate you but its very such a strange thing to define. Using a correction notice from the NYT from 1995 is not source. It's like somebody finding an article about the crumbling Bull Ring and adding that to Birmingham. The general concensus is that Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Edinburgh all vie for the title. But please before further edit discuss what you are going to write and what sources you are going to use. Nobody can argue with well formed sources. Mike33 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Mike33 here. Wikipedia has strict guidelines to halt the misappropriation of sources. Your two sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's policy - they are obsure foreign publications, one of which is outdated and does not state anything about city status, but instead discusses city size. They do not hold official value, nor claim consensus, nor are primary sources.
I could write an article about Manchester being the centre of the universe, but it wouldn't reflect a mainstream point of view, and wouldn't be encyclopedic to include as a reliable source. Indeed, I have a detailed source that insists David Hasselhoff is the Anti-Christ, but it does not satisfy WP:RS. In this capacity, even if you wholly believe your contributions to be in good faith, they are not helpful and not supported by the editting community for reasons beyond civic pride (incidently, I'm not a Mancunian), and will be justifiably reverted.
Posting warning messages on my talk page doesn't help, because ultimately I'm backed up by the rules, and have been a registered contributor for years. It suggests you have no intent on working with other users, which is a shame. Please now consider this a final explicit warning not to revert this article again, to conform to policy and work with the editting community. It's a chance to put this behind you. Jza84 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Such additions were discussed on the Manchester discussion board prior to amendment in line with WP:CIVIL - no counter sources have yet been put forward reporting Birmingham as the 'UK's third city' as I do not believe any credible news organisation would report such. I believe these sources are still fully valid but will comply with WP:CIVIL and discuss further to have them reinstated. Should a satisfactory conclusion not be reached I will take the matter further, as I believe the Manchester article represents only a partisan POV and not that of neutral Encyclopedic content and deliberate attempts are being made to ensure this remains the case. I should however make it clear from my past experience in life that I will not tolerate any form of intimidation as I have regularly experienced when accessing other Manchester related websites. 195.212.52.6 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Manchester, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mike33 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate

As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forums

I have recently sought to find innovative ways to help stop the "minefield" situation in the "Second city of the United Kingdom" deabte, over which city whether culturally or demographically deserves the title. I came across this webforum, and because you have the "(top)" edit for Rob Right's user page and you have edited articles for this username, either posing or indeed having a mistaken login and then publicly expressing to other editors on the internet, whether established on Wikipedia or not to is gross misconduct on your part. I am also disturbed by your aesthetism, by "playing both sides" shall we say, your edit to the WikiProject:Greater Manchester Project page exclaiming "Rob Right's" residence and evocation of love for Manchester whilst on here with an extremely co-incidental username with the same intentions tells people to do the exact opposite! I am exceedingly concerned about yours and Rob Right's behaviour and I am going to ask for AIV on your part. R_O (Talk) 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This IP address has been blocked temporarily.
Suspected sockpuppet evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;
the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.
If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock|reason for unblock here}} on your talk page, with a note
referencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).
Administrators: Please consult with the blocking administrator who placed the block before unblocking.		 
Daniel Case 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)