User talk:206.163.235.114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User talk:206.163.235.114, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Ke5crz 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Regina article update

Thought I'd drop you a line and write that some text has been placed in the Regina article on North-central. Friesguy is working hard. We intend to work on this over the long haul. We'd like to give it the shape that you were so eager to discuss yesterday. Please help us to edit in the article page as required and do post your new ideas on the article page. There are other Regina-related articles in Wikipedia, as you know. Welcome! Mumun 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on the Regina North-Central page, I appreciate it as I dont have a lot of time right now. FYI, I like what most of your article has to say, and I dont necassarily agree with all your points but it would be boring if we all agreed all the time. Friesguy 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Central article

"The murder rate increased by 33% in this 153-block area containing approximately 10,500 people between November 2005 and November 2006." - That is false, the murder rate in north central didn't increase by 33%, Regina's did. I will once again remove this from the article. --71.17.54.106 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Why did you revert the changes to the North Central article? I removed those lines for a reason! The percent increases shown are for the entire city, not just for north central as you stated. Therefore they are misleading and false. Aslo saying that the murder rate increased by 33%, when that equates to only 2 additional murders is extremely dramatic and misleading. I am also curious why you think its only relevant to show the small number of crime stats which have increased, while ignoring the fact that 'crimes against the person', 'crimes against property', and crimes overall have decreased. My edit was much less biased and more factual. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll continue to revert back to my version until you can prove to me why your version makes more sense.--71.17.54.106 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not the only editor of the Regina editor, so you cant always have everything your own way, there has to be some agreement and it appears several of the longtime editors have all agreed some time ago that the North Central article didnt belong in Urban PLanning where I had originally put it after the MacLeans article came out. I now agree with the rest of the authors and editors and feel it would be better served in a place of its own specifically designated to the wide variety of experiences and living conditions that are available in Regina. There is a 3 revert rule in Wiki that becomes vandalism after 3 reverts , a possible banning may be enforced so please work with us, not against us.Friesguy 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Would that not apply to you as well, the 3 revert rule ? --206.163.235.114 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

i was only doing what was discussed a month or so ago by several editors. I am not the user that got banned from editing the Regina wiki when reverts got out of hand,and I am not the one making unwelcome remarks to other members when edits are made that you dont agree with. Listen to reason and be flexible and everything will work out for everyone. Not everyone can possibly agree with everyone else, but thats why compromise is something of a necessity on wiki.Friesguy 05:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppet vandal account blocked

This anonymous IP was a sockpuppet of User:Mayor Quimby and another anon. IP address. As Mayor Quimby this user made legal threat and the user continuously vandalized the user's own user page. In the user's other form, User:216.174.134.2, this user continuously attempted to insert erroroneous statistics into the Regina, Saskatchewan and Regina neighbourhoods articles. Here is the block log for the user 206.163.235.114. --Mumun 無文 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "edits relevant and sourced"

Decline reason: "You were blocked as a sockpuppet, the quality of your edits is irrelevant. — John Reaves (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Ergo post hoc propter hoc- the "sock puppet" is due to an unreasonable block in the beginning. The level of justice and fair play is certainly lacking in this "community". The original block was for the same reasons, vindictive agendas. The sole reason behind the original complaints was that my edits were not "positive" enough. Even though, they were legitimate, relevant and sourced. If this IP is blocked due to a sock puppet designation then the original block should be reviewed, since it was erroneous and evidence fabricated( such as legal threats on wiki, that did not exist until someone else placed them there. It is my hope that someone will actually investigate the block and allegations associated with said block. I also hope that those that have perpetuated this misinformation and lies are disciplined for abuse of power and acts unbecoming of an administrator and editor.--206.163.235.114 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this sockpuppet anon IP and all of its tentacles should never be unblocked

I urge all administrators to pay no attention to this anon IPs attempts to evade blockage. This user has no intention whatsoever of editing according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please see User:Ryulong's message on the sockpuppet master account User Talk:Mayor Quimby. Mumun 無文 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the type of abuse that I have been dealing with. The information is from primary sources and relevant but due to bias and POV the editors involved have invented threats and went out of their way to make it appear that my edits are unsavoury or inappropriate. I encourage administrators to review my edits and make a conclusion based on them, not heresy and vendettas.--206.163.235.114 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "edits relevant and sourced; prior to original block; sock puppet is my only means of appeal"

Decline reason: "Sockpuppetry is not your only means of appeal. — 210physicq (c) 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Really, then guide through the process instead of just blocking me, this is a very unfriendly environment and full of cliques with agendas. You tell me , what is a new user suppose to do when ganged upon by a group of editors with an agenda ?--206.163.235.114 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS- If I do put up a new unblock message, the worst you can do is block me and I already am blocked

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "edits relevant and sourced; unreasonable reasoning given for block; no direction on appeals; unable to appeal as user as blocked from my own talk page, a blatant misuse of rules; i would like a full hearing/appeal on this subject, as it is unfair and unwarranted"

Decline reason: "Despite your arrogant attitude, I will tell you this: post an {{unblock}} message on your main account. But I can say that since you uttered a legal threat, you're going to have a hard time convincing people to unblock you. And also note that sockpuppetry to evade a block, irregardless of length, is forbidden unless explicitly allowed by Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or the community. — 210physicq (c) 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "legal threats fabricated; i made no such threats on wikipedia,anywhere; please show where I posted a legal threat."

Decline reason: "I received at least one legal threat via Wikipedia e-mail, Mr. Fiacco, as have several other editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.