User talk:69.117.20.128 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dominiclai06 (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 13 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:55, 13 May 2007 by Dominiclai06 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This IP address has been used by banned user Jessica Liao.
Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Template:Do not delete

Hello 69.117.20.128! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Merbabu

Getting Started
Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

Just thought that the irony would be amusing.

BG Color

I don't see any reason to change the background color, and unless there is a special case, there is no reason not for it to conform to the standard. Yono 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The colors are standardized by topic. --DanielCD 15:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Inclusive classroom

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. I agree that as the article stands, it's biased in favour of inclusive education; but you can't counter bias with bias. See Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy. - Mike Rosoft 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but you can't state opinion as a fact, and you can't put your private opinion in articles (original research generally doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages). - Mike Rosoft 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your additions seem to be a straw man attack against inclusive education, an attempt to counter an argument the proponents do not actually make in the first place.

Somebody might argue that freedom of speech is an utopia, because you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded cinema, or - for an even more extreme example - tell somebody to commit murder. And I would respond: nobody argues that this kind of speech should be protected as a human right; in other words, your right to freedom of speech is not unlimited.

Similarly, the proponents of inclusive education don't deny that some children need specialized care; they just argue that education should be inclusive to an extent it can be done. - Mike Rosoft 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I DID read your edits; that's why I had reverted them. - Mike Rosoft 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - please don't remove content Stephenb (Talk) 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that you reinstated some point-of-view material into this article. I appreciate your concerns about this article, and agree that it needs work to bring it to a neutral point of view. However, your editorial comments are clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource. I would appreciate it if you could rewrite your introduction in a neutral tone, or if you could offer me some suggestions as to what would satisfy you in order to prevent this turning into an edit war. I am also posting this to the article talk page so we can engage other editors in discussion. Thanks! --Xnuala (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Indonesians

Please stop adding nonsense to the page. You are making up your own interpretations based upon what you think should be a fact rather than what is a fact. Please read WP:NOR. They are an ethnic group in Indonesia, and measured by the Indonesian census. (Caniago 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

WP:VERIFY states that the onus to provide a citation is on those who want to add an edit, not revert. kind regards --Merbabu 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't just removed the existing information, you invented your own uncited information to replace it with. (Caniago 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Your Asian American case is irrelevant. Please don't invent your own interpretations. If you want to contribute, please do some research and cite reliable sources. (Caniago 15:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Onus = obligation. Here's a summary of WP:VERIFY - particularly the third point:

This page in a nutshell:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

regards Merbabu 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you guys should be careful of WP:3RR - I am sure you both know it. Just a friendly reminder. Merbabu 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Merbabu : WP:VERIFY states that the onus to provide a citation is on those who want to add an edit, not revert. (Caniago 15:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Please read Ethnic group. (Caniago 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I recommend you stop editing the page. You are already in violation of the WP:3RR policy, and if it continues, you will likely be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages by the administrators. (Caniago 15:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)).

You've supplied a dictionary definition for Asian American. That is not the same thing. Suggesting that it is the same is original research. please do not make that edit again. WP:NOR is a fundamental wikipedia policy. regards Merbabu 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Chinese Indonesian. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gnan garra 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

that's not fair! I provided a reference for the information..you didn't even give me a chance. I didn't even get a warning before. Now you tell me...that it's an unreliable source after I have been blocked...that is totally unfair...i don't deserved to be blocked...if he just tell me that earlier..

Decline reason:

Multiple warnings, clear WP:3RR violation. — Yamla 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

You made four reinsertions edits after Merbabu warning at 15:14 UTC dif 3 dif 2 dif 1 edit summary of prior revert says "please provide a reliable source" and then you were warned again at 15:40 by Caniago you then reinserted the information again at 15:43. diff 4 Gnan garra 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That user didn't tell me it was an unreliable source...he just told me after I was blocked. That's not fair. Now I know it's an unreliable source...why can't you just give me a break...it's not my fault that the other user told me after I was blocked?

This revert he did dif 1 edit summary of prior revert says "please provide a reliable source" Gnan garra

You obviously didn't read and understand the WP:3RR page. Here is a summary:

This page in a nutshell: Edit warring is harmful. Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing.

Caniago 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were blocked. But 24 hours isn't really that long. I've put some info up the top here for you that may help. Also, consider creating an account. The main problem for me was that it was original research to say that Asian American = Chinese Indonesian. Although other people may have another opinion. Are you new to wikipedia editing? Don't worry, we all learn a lot. have a look at the info above, but just remember that wikipedia is a serious collaborative project. We need to work hard, and work with others. For example, the Chinese Indonesian article uses the Indonesian understanding of the term. To change that changes the premise of the article. But next time, let's discuss how we can improve it. That's the wikipedia way. bye for now Merbabu 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Student

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove warnings from this page.
Your edits to Student are hard to see as anything but vandalism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page edit

How dare you edit a message on my talk page from another user. stay out of my talk page and do not edit messages from a third party again. Insufferable. --Brideshead 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I provided a reference for the special education article. How is it vandalism? I was upset because that user was talking about me. I don’t like it when people talk about me. So that’s why I deleted the message from Brideshead’s talk page. If someone talked about you, wouldn’t you be upset?

Decline reason:

That's not what you were blocked for. See below. — Yamla 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I have contacted the blocking admin and will ask him to give a comment here. Part Deux 19:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This user deleted third party comments from my talk page for a second time, I complained and asked for them to be blocked. --Brideshead 19:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was too harsh concerning the edits to Student, for which I apologise (the edit summary didn't seem to have much to do with the edit, which included unsourced additions, the change of scope of provisos, etc., but it was disruptive at worst, not clearly vandalism).

The blanking of Talk-page comments, expecially in the light of the past behaviour from this IP (which, from the contributions history, would seem to be all by the same person) was the main reason for the block. When I checked the contribution history, I found a couple of minor problems; the edit to Special education was given a reference, but it was to a dictionary definition whose compressed and somewhat telegraphic language didn't seem to me to be a good model for the lead of an article, though the main trouble was that "singular" simply means "special" in that context, making the definition circular. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Special education also includes people who do not have disabilities…such as those with behavioral problems. Now the article only says that it is only for people with disabilities. And that’s not correct. Special education includes gifted children as well. Are you saying that gifted children have disabilities? They don’t have that…so they have singular needs.

"Singular needs" just means "special needs"; how is that elucidatory? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So can we use special needs instead of saying disabilities? In the article it simply states those with disabilities.

Checkuser relating to this user

Alright the only reason I'm coming to this page is to post the checkuser relating to to this user. The checkuser can be found Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jessica_Liao <- here. This editor, like the rest of us, sometimes gets it completely right and but has problems like above. I'm not saying that this user is the only user of this IP but it's worthwhile to look at the checkuser of the editor we talk about mostly on this IP. MrMacMan 00:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then a block appears appropriate after all. Part Deux 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image isn't relevant to the article; your edit summary made all sorts of ungrounded assumptions (that the girl was part of a relevant educational programme was the most significant). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"She's waving at us...so it sort of supports the article. All children with disabilities should be taught in mainstream schools."

I don't follow this at all, I'm afraid — neither the reason that the image "supports the article" nor the connection between the two sentences.

"Then what kind of image can we put in the article, if we can't put her in?"

Possibly none (it's not a very graphical subject, after all). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Great Neck Village School. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ↔ z (talk · contribs) 02:53:00, Monday, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Re: Compulsory education

I wrote "between the ages of six and sixteen", that means between. I'm aware that it ends at 16. --PiMaster3 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

cheek

You're a fine one to talk about being 'mean'. Vandalism is wrong, pretending it's a mistake as hundreds of editors have done with you simply let's you off with it. i'm not so weak. --Brideshead 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Yeah I guess add them back. I'm not sure if you sourced them properly but I didn't think the quotes were an inappropriate section. I didn't remove them firstly so I don't have a problem adding them back in. MrMacMan 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First, only one of the quotations had a proper reference. Secondly, at least two of the quotations were so anodyne as to be pointless. Thirdly, the Mead quotation wasn't obviously related to the article. Fourthly, quotation sections are in any case deprecated in the Manual of Style. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Abigail Breslin

Yeah, she's a child actress and she's categorized as that. Look at the bottom section. However, at the top, it should stay as actress because that's her career; her job. Leaving it as actress will stay consistent as she ages. The example, you gave me should be changed too. Fighting for Justice 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across the page Abigail Breslin by accident. Whilst you are quite correct in informing Fighting for Justice that it is quite okay to use the term Child actor it is inappropriate that you use his talk page for uncivil communication - no matter how frustrated you are. If you have problems with his consistent reversion of your legitimate edits please report him at WP:3RR but if I can be so bold as to suggest, try always to remain calm and collected.--VS 01:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hamber Secondary School

I don't know how the US categorizes their schools, but in Canada, it should be secondary school, and besides, go to their website. It says Secondary School Dominiclai06 16:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

Categories: