User talk:79.182.199.172 - Revision history

MalnadachBot: Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

MalnadachBot — Fri, 28 Oct 2022 00:53:36 GMT

Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:53, 28 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Blanked IP talk}}
	{{Shared IP\|Bezeq International (Israel)}}

	== June 2012 ==
	This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
	:You haven't replied to my question at the article talk page, your page, my page, etc. I am participating in a ] discussion, and if you have nothing to say about the content, please let me know now, and I will consider you to have withdrawn from your argument at the talk page, and revert the change you did.
	::I see you finally replied in the talk page, I will read your reply now.

	== Blocked ==

	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
	You avoided a sanction for a clear 3RR violation , largely because the reviewing admins wanted to give you a chance to stop edit-warring and try to convince people on the talk page. Given the resumption of edit-warring, I've blocked your IP for 24 hours. When the block expires, please use the talk page and try to reach a consensus ''before'' repeatedly reinserting the same disputed material. It's clear that there are significant good-faith objections to the material, and those need to be addressed ''without'' concurrent attempts to force the material into the article. I would strongly consider limiting yourself to one edit (or set of contiguous edits) to the article per day. If your edits truly have consensus, then you don't need to keep edit-warring. If they ''don't'' have consensus, then you need to follow the steps outlined ] rather than continuing to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=I didn't violate 3RR, and didn't violate it today. I followed ] , and a few of my edits today seem to have been accepted. The editor who complained about me on the other hand, had some of his edits reverted by an other editor. ] (]) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)\|decline=Since mid-April, under a variety of IPs you have continued to try to force your new thinking into the ] article. You seem to be eager to draw attention to the risks of ionizing radiation to the patient. Your changes have usually been opposed by others, many of whom have experience with medical articles and know Misplaced Pages policy well. When your block expires, you should negotiate patiently on the talk page to see if you can reach agreement with the others. If it turns out that your views are outside the current consensus, you should let the matter go and not keep reverting the article. See ] for why conducting an edit war with a fluctuating IP is frowned upon. ] (]) 07:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC) }}

	I just closed the relevant ] report, coming to the same conclusion as the blocking administrator above. Since I started there, I am going to restrict myself to endorsing the original block without prejudice to anyone else reviewing this unblock request. However, IP 79.xxx, I have left a little advice for you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may also wish to consider ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Elektrik Shoos: IPsock tags typically go on the user page; moving

Elektrik Shoos — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:57:49 GMT

IPsock tags typically go on the user page; moving

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:57, 21 July 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{IPsock\|Nenpog‎\|confirmed\|blocked=yes}}
	{{Shared IP\|Bezeq International (Israel)}}		{{Shared IP\|Bezeq International (Israel)}}

	== June 2012 ==		== June 2012 ==
	This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon: Tags; Shared IP, IPSock.

Guy Macon — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:41:10 GMT

Tags; Shared IP, IPSock.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:41, 21 July 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{IPsock\|Nenpog‎\|confirmed\|blocked=yes}}
			{{Shared IP\|Bezeq International (Israel)}}
	== June 2012 ==		== June 2012 ==
	This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston: /* Blocked */ Unblock declined

EdJohnston — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:01:38 GMT

Blocked: Unblock declined

← Previous revision		Revision as of 07:01, 20 June 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:
	You avoided a sanction for a clear 3RR violation , largely because the reviewing admins wanted to give you a chance to stop edit-warring and try to convince people on the talk page. Given the resumption of edit-warring, I've blocked your IP for 24 hours. When the block expires, please use the talk page and try to reach a consensus ''before'' repeatedly reinserting the same disputed material. It's clear that there are significant good-faith objections to the material, and those need to be addressed ''without'' concurrent attempts to force the material into the article. I would strongly consider limiting yourself to one edit (or set of contiguous edits) to the article per day. If your edits truly have consensus, then you don't need to keep edit-warring. If they ''don't'' have consensus, then you need to follow the steps outlined ] rather than continuing to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		You avoided a sanction for a clear 3RR violation , largely because the reviewing admins wanted to give you a chance to stop edit-warring and try to convince people on the talk page. Given the resumption of edit-warring, I've blocked your IP for 24 hours. When the block expires, please use the talk page and try to reach a consensus ''before'' repeatedly reinserting the same disputed material. It's clear that there are significant good-faith objections to the material, and those need to be addressed ''without'' concurrent attempts to force the material into the article. I would strongly consider limiting yourself to one edit (or set of contiguous edits) to the article per day. If your edits truly have consensus, then you don't need to keep edit-warring. If they ''don't'' have consensus, then you need to follow the steps outlined ] rather than continuing to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

			{{unblock reviewed\|reason=I didn't violate 3RR, and didn't violate it today. I followed ] , and a few of my edits today seem to have been accepted. The editor who complained about me on the other hand, had some of his edits reverted by an other editor. ] (]) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)\|decline=Since mid-April, under a variety of IPs you have continued to try to force your new thinking into the ] article. You seem to be eager to draw attention to the risks of ionizing radiation to the patient. Your changes have usually been opposed by others, many of whom have experience with medical articles and know Misplaced Pages policy well. When your block expires, you should negotiate patiently on the talk page to see if you can reach agreement with the others. If it turns out that your views are outside the current consensus, you should let the matter go and not keep reverting the article. See ] for why conducting an edit war with a fluctuating IP is frowned upon. ] (]) 07:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC) }}

	{{unblock\|reason=I didn't violate 3RR, and didn't violate it today. I followed ] , and a few of my edits today seem to have been accepted. The editor who complained about me on the other hand, had some of his edits reverted by an other editor. ] (]) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)}},

	I just closed the relevant ] report, coming to the same conclusion as the blocking administrator above. Since I started there, I am going to restrict myself to endorsing the original block without prejudice to anyone else reviewing this unblock request. However, IP 79.xxx, I have left a little advice for you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may also wish to consider ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		I just closed the relevant ] report, coming to the same conclusion as the blocking administrator above. Since I started there, I am going to restrict myself to endorsing the original block without prejudice to anyone else reviewing this unblock request. However, IP 79.xxx, I have left a little advice for you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may also wish to consider ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

2over0: /* Blocked */ comments for you at AN3

2over0 — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:40:05 GMT

Blocked: comments for you at AN3

← Previous revision		Revision as of 06:40, 20 June 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:

	{{unblock\|reason=I didn't violate 3RR, and didn't violate it today. I followed ] , and a few of my edits today seem to have been accepted. The editor who complained about me on the other hand, had some of his edits reverted by an other editor. ] (]) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)}},		{{unblock\|reason=I didn't violate 3RR, and didn't violate it today. I followed ] , and a few of my edits today seem to have been accepted. The editor who complained about me on the other hand, had some of his edits reverted by an other editor. ] (]) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)}},

			I just closed the relevant ] report, coming to the same conclusion as the blocking administrator above. Since I started there, I am going to restrict myself to endorsing the original block without prejudice to anyone else reviewing this unblock request. However, IP 79.xxx, I have left a little advice for you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may also wish to consider ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

79.182.199.172: /* Blocked */

79.182.199.172 — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:54:36 GMT

Blocked

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:54, 20 June 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:
	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->		<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
	You avoided a sanction for a clear 3RR violation , largely because the reviewing admins wanted to give you a chance to stop edit-warring and try to convince people on the talk page. Given the resumption of edit-warring, I've blocked your IP for 24 hours. When the block expires, please use the talk page and try to reach a consensus ''before'' repeatedly reinserting the same disputed material. It's clear that there are significant good-faith objections to the material, and those need to be addressed ''without'' concurrent attempts to force the material into the article. I would strongly consider limiting yourself to one edit (or set of contiguous edits) to the article per day. If your edits truly have consensus, then you don't need to keep edit-warring. If they ''don't'' have consensus, then you need to follow the steps outlined ] rather than continuing to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		You avoided a sanction for a clear 3RR violation , largely because the reviewing admins wanted to give you a chance to stop edit-warring and try to convince people on the talk page. Given the resumption of edit-warring, I've blocked your IP for 24 hours. When the block expires, please use the talk page and try to reach a consensus ''before'' repeatedly reinserting the same disputed material. It's clear that there are significant good-faith objections to the material, and those need to be addressed ''without'' concurrent attempts to force the material into the article. I would strongly consider limiting yourself to one edit (or set of contiguous edits) to the article per day. If your edits truly have consensus, then you don't need to keep edit-warring. If they ''don't'' have consensus, then you need to follow the steps outlined ] rather than continuing to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


			{{unblock\|reason=I didn't violate 3RR, and didn't violate it today. I followed ] , and a few of my edits today seem to have been accepted. The editor who complained about me on the other hand, had some of his edits reverted by an other editor. ] (]) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)}},

MastCell: /* Blocked */ new section

MastCell — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:21:38 GMT

Blocked: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:21, 20 June 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:You haven't replied to my question at the article talk page, your page, my page, etc. I am participating in a ] discussion, and if you have nothing to say about the content, please let me know now, and I will consider you to have withdrawn from your argument at the talk page, and revert the change you did.		:You haven't replied to my question at the article talk page, your page, my page, etc. I am participating in a ] discussion, and if you have nothing to say about the content, please let me know now, and I will consider you to have withdrawn from your argument at the talk page, and revert the change you did.
	::I see you finally replied in the talk page, I will read your reply now.		::I see you finally replied in the talk page, I will read your reply now.

			== Blocked ==

			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
			You avoided a sanction for a clear 3RR violation , largely because the reviewing admins wanted to give you a chance to stop edit-warring and try to convince people on the talk page. Given the resumption of edit-warring, I've blocked your IP for 24 hours. When the block expires, please use the talk page and try to reach a consensus ''before'' repeatedly reinserting the same disputed material. It's clear that there are significant good-faith objections to the material, and those need to be addressed ''without'' concurrent attempts to force the material into the article. I would strongly consider limiting yourself to one edit (or set of contiguous edits) to the article per day. If your edits truly have consensus, then you don't need to keep edit-warring. If they ''don't'' have consensus, then you need to follow the steps outlined ] rather than continuing to edit-war. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

79.182.199.172: /* June 2012 */

79.182.199.172 — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:35:13 GMT

June 2012

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:35, 20 June 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:
	This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
	:You haven't replied to my question at the article talk page, your page, my page, etc. I am participating in a ] discussion, and if you have nothing to say about the content, please let me know now, and I will consider you to have withdrawn from your argument at the talk page, and revert the change you did.		:You haven't replied to my question at the article talk page, your page, my page, etc. I am participating in a ] discussion, and if you have nothing to say about the content, please let me know now, and I will consider you to have withdrawn from your argument at the talk page, and revert the change you did.
			::I see you finally replied in the talk page, I will read your reply now.

79.182.199.172: /* June 2012 */

79.182.199.172 — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:32:47 GMT

June 2012

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:32, 20 June 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== June 2012 ==		== June 2012 ==
	This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)		This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
			:You haven't replied to my question at the article talk page, your page, my page, etc. I am participating in a ] discussion, and if you have nothing to say about the content, please let me know now, and I will consider you to have withdrawn from your argument at the talk page, and revert the change you did.

RexxS: final warning

RexxS — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:16:43 GMT

final warning

New page

== June 2012 ==
This is a final warning. Your behaviour in reverting against the consensus of several other editors and against the policy documented at ] in the ] article, as well as your "wall of text" swamping of the talk page is ] and will lead to your editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Switching IPs to evade scrutiny will not work as IP ranges as just as easily blocked. As is made clear in ], Misplaced Pages is not he place for you to campaign to expose the problems you imagine exist with CT scans. --] (]) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)