User talk:NineNineTwoThreeSix

No problems guys, keep contributing! 99.236.221.124 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, per WP:BLANKING, you can remove most entries from your talk page, but there are specific exceptions listed. Please follow the link to WP:BLANKING, which (in part) states "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages ... removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user ... Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), as well as miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) or, for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates" (emphasis added by me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users. And I'm going to keep deleting it because I've done nothing wrong and I don't want it on my page. If you don't like that, feel free to ban me, in which case I will feel free to contact my lawyer about weather or not this is infringing on Canadian electronic privacy laws, and I'm pretty sure it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Information_Protection_and_Electronic_Documents_Act The law requires organizations to:

1. obtain consent when they collect, use or disclose their personal information;

Consent I was never asked for.

Seriously, if you have a concern or a point behind this, I'll be happy to help you out. But giving people my IP provider and IP as well as encouraging them to find me on a map is downright insane. I have enough problems to deal with without having people encouraged to spot me on a map, and god forbid, visit me on account of an internet dispute. Do we have an understanding? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: first, the IP header is NOT a warning. You are free to remove warnings from your user talk page. The bit about not restoring them does not apply.

Second, your IP is publicly displayed. It is not personal information - it's registered to your ISP.

Third, go to the bottom of this page, within the box that starts with the text "This is the discussion page for an IP user ...", and click where it says whois ... same info.

Fourth, making legal threats is a blockable offense, which explains the following warning template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:99.236.221.124 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is prohibited to ask for legal advice? Also, how exactly is it okay for you to threaten me with a ban in response to me seeking legal advice? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are issued because a user is being disruptive, whether it be graffiti, reverting constantly - or attempting to intimidate editors by threatening to bring in lawyers. You were not seeking legal advice (which we do not provide anyways), you were attempting to scare an editor away from doing a legitimate edit by threatening to call your lawyer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking for legal advice from Wikipedia (where did that even come from?). We obviously have a different definition of threat 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of legal action are against Wikipedia policy. Have you considered creating a named account to do your editing? This hides your IP address entirely so that only administrators can see it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening anything, see the related talk page below. As for named account, what would be the point? There would still be this account, with full history and a huge prompt asking people to find me. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney; up above you threatened to call your lawyer. That is an out-and-out legal threat. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, baloney? An out and out legal threat is "I'm going to sue you", saying "asking my lawyer whether this display is OK" is not a threat, it's not even close to a threat. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By violating policies and subsequently turning this into a big drama fest you've brought far more attention to this page than if you had just removed the talk page comments, left the header and used an account afterwards. It seems far more paranoid that you'd even worry that someone wants to "find" you than us taking your apparent legal threats at face value... Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm going to say this one more time. There. Was. No. Legal. Threat. If someone perceived one, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

As for drama fests, you should be aware that I did not start this dispute, nor escalate it. And I've explained why I don't want to use an account, I don't plan on moving or changing my IP provider so my IP is likely to remain the same for a loooong time. During that time, I don't want to be harassed in real life. Why is this hard to understand? Doing my best here 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following at WP:ANI, but reposting here due to the block ...

Incidentally, the {{ISP}} template which you continue to remove does not contain a map, address, or any identifying information beyond listing your IP (already shown on page), and your ISP (who actually owns the IP address). Additionally, the ISP's name can already be seen by clicking the "whois" link which is available at the bottom of any IP's talk page within the box which begins with the text "This is the discussion page for an IP user ...". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to understand because your logic makes no sense. An account hides your IP address from public view. If you didn't want to be "harrassed" in real life, you'd create an account. Instead, it looks like you're just being deliberately disruptive to prove some kind of point. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With the anon removing the template and now Floquenbeam, I think it might be time to lock down the entire talk page and move on. Not like the anon will be using it for a month. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 99.236.221.124. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-enwikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. Tan | 39 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion at WP:ANI, your talk page access was restored. Please note that the block was specifically due to the legal threat. You are, of course, welcome to seek legal counsel and assistance externally to Wikipedia. But, Wikipedia's policy does not permit the use of legal threats in discussions (regardless of your intent to follow-through) when debating issues internal to Wikipedia.

I hope you can understand the reasons for this. It is, of course, far more important when it comes to article content where threats of legal action can be used to coerce or silence other parties in debates ... but the same policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia.

To remove the block to be able to edit the rest of Wikipedia, you would need to use the {{unblock}} template to retract the legal threat, to show that you understand why the use of such threats are detrimental to building Wikipedia, and that you will not use them within Wikipedia in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really care about editing the rest of Wikipedia right at this moment, but to keep good faith {{unblock|I apologize and retract any legal or otherwise threats I inadvertently made and promise to be more careful with how I phrase things in the future. I never intended to sue anyone, I don't intend to do it now or in the future, suing takes months of work and a lot of money and I obviously don't have the wherewithal to do it.}}. This got blown way out of proportion and I'm definitively one of the guilty parties in taking up everyone's time, and for that also you have my apology. BTW, I wasn't aware of the unblock until just now. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: just to make sure you understand this, all you really need to do is clearly say "I do not intend to sue anyone, and retract any legal threat". Even if you think you did already, just say this (assuming it's true, of course, which based on your previous comments, I assume it is). Then, when things have calmed down, I think a good case can be made to remove the template up top. Or, if you contact WP:OTRS, there are people there that might be willing to remove it for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template and would very strongly advise everyone to not reinstate it against the user's will. It clearly has no useful purpose in this case, it is ugly, the user has good reasons not to want it on his page (for one thing, the big ugly "Attention!" may be perceived as a "scarlet letter" insinuating something negative about his contributions to people who come across the page), and it seems to be factually wrong in any case. To the IP: I'm really sorry this has escalated to this ridiculous point – please just give us a token of recognition of this no-legal-threats thing and you will be unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for providing the clarification above. I've lifted the block now. I hope we can now treat this as resolved, and as I said, I regret it had to come to this escalation in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, you guys have a nice weekend. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are proof that users can be polite when faced with an NLT block. :) — Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the anon; I am sorry for my part in this. I hope you can accept my sincere apology for any and all stress this caused, and I also hope that you continue to choose to edit Wikipedia in the future. I also should have looked at the talk page history sooner and realized that the initial tag was not applied due to any wrong-doing on your part, and I also mistakenly thought at first that you were using a shared IP. It was only after the legal issue came up that I realized my mistake.

I am also sorry that you were not provided guidance sooner on how to retract a legal threat. I realize now it was never your intent to pursue that issue; so I am glad to see that once guidance was provided, you were able to quickly have the block removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong to add the IP information template to your talk page. I did not want anyone to re-add it, nor to add other such template(s). I should have stepped in and explicitly notified those editors on their talk pages to stop doing so, as my comments to that effect on my talk page were insufficient. I appreciate your good humor over this incident, and hope you'll reconsider your understandable lack of enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. I have posted a more detailed apology, as well as an explanation, to the administrators' noticeboard here. If there is anything else I can do, or if you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologised on 4wajzkd02's talk page, and would like to do so here and on the AN/I, about my misunderstanding of the template's usage. I, personally, also had not looked at your contribution log and had assumed that it had been put there for a reason. Next time, I shall be more thorough as, though I only account for two of the edits, I was the one who kicked this all off and I would like to sincerely apologise for that. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to seriously contribute to Wikipedia, then I suggest you make a fresh start and create your own user account. In practice, that gives editors a lot more credibility than working from a relatively anonymous IP. Fish farming (and aquaculture) need rewriting at the moment. If you want to contribute material on biotechnology, start a new section called "Biotechnology", and add material as best as you can. I'll keep an eye on it and help out, as you asked. Please make sure you cite a reliable source for each statement you add. Also, please make sure you write the material in your own words, so you are not adding copyright violations. If you are not sure how to add citations, then just add them as best as you can in the right places, and I will tidy it up. Feel free to ask anything, and be bold! --Epipelagic (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Bering Strait crossing. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, whatever. I simply picked a really long proposed modern project and decided to tell people the difference in cost. Because you see, the Bearing strait crossing would be far more complex and would require an even greater investment. It certainly isn't vandalism, assume good faith brosef, no reason to skip civility and go right to personal attacks. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack was intended, nor do I see how you inferred one from a standard warning. I call them as I see them, and because of the tendency for mentions of a US/Mexico border wall to be based upon opinion, I felt it was not especially relevant to the case. In particular, the fact that the engineering differences between a wall and a massive bridge, particularly a bridge which, as you point out, is far more complex than any created before, and under different environmental constraints, makes me question the relevancy of mentioning a US/Mexico barrier. A personal attack would have been something ad hominem such as an assault on your character (which I have no reason to doubt), which did not come up during the warning, as shown above. Best regards. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to your recent comments on the topic of Scientology, its talkpage, etc, please be aware of prior Arbitration Committee cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to List of equipment of the Serbian Land Forces. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 04:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Please disregard the previous warning. I checked the ref and found it to be legit. My apologies. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 04:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something went wrong... That happens quite often in a past few months... All best --Tadija (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Sukhoi PAK FA, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though you removed my comment, I'm not going to do the same to you because people need to see a good example of users acting patronizing only for the purpose of starting an argument. To the people reading this, try not to sink to this level. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being patronizing by adding the warning, if that is what you meant. IP addresses can be used by anyone, and warnings are recommended before admins will block for abusive editing. At this point, your behavior is just as trollish as that of the other IPs, and that's why I removed your comments from my talk page. Please join the discussion about cost on the talk page, or you may receive a 3RR warning, also required before an admin will block for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to be civil is trolling? Maybe in your world 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've noticed the fairly overt attempts at trying to start a discussion on unit cost, but I suggest you go and have a look and point out your understanding of the source. Edit wars are not appropriate ways to make changes to an article. If you can give a thorough reason as to why your interpretation of a source is superior, the edit will remain.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't noticed considering how recently it was posted, thanks for pointing it out. As for the "edit remaining", I'm trying to preserve the older state of the article until the dispute is over, but people keep changing it (often by removing sources or making claims which do not mesh with sources, ie vandalism). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]