70.112.44.202

November 2017

Hello, I'm Tompop888. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Sergecross73 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tompop888 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ristar. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ristar was changed by 70.112.44.202 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.929522 on 2017-11-07T17:51:38+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. GMG^talk 17:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've made your change 3 times now, while there's clearly no WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. WP:BRD and consensus doesn't say "start a talk page discussion and then revert over and over again". If you are challenged once, you're supposed to stop, discuss, and only make the change again if there is a clear consensus to move forward. We do not have that, so stop making your change. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, I give up. It's not possible to get a consensus because it require myself and two others simultaneously to care. There have been at least three or four others who said the same as I did, but the consensus of solely you and Dissident matters more. And it always will. I guess years ago you stop erroneously pushing this idea that Yuji Naka worked on this game. You should just ban me from the article so I can stop caring and fighting this pointless battle because I now know because of you why wikipedia isn't really a thing by the people, it can be pushed to say what it wants to say by certain admins just screaming over and over that whatever source they have is the best source even if it is lesser. So thanks for the disappointment I guess. I'll revert again, so ban me.

Faking a "I give up" while continuing to revert will just get you blocked all the same. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the same as it's always been, it's directly arguing with you and Dissident93 or there would be no issue, so yeah, I give up.

In what capacity are you giving up? Because you're still reverting on the article and still ranting on the talk page? Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Because you asked questions, I will still respond, however it will not go anywhere because ultimately you are the one who has the say, because Wikipedia is run by admins.

None of that addresses your continued reverts or arguing. It's literally not "giving up" if you're still doing both. Don't make misleading comments to avoid scrutiny. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I provided a lengthy discussion and dispute on the sources why they are not valid over and over, through the years. And no it was not only me under one IP disputing this, myself and three other people alone in various places have disputed what Sergecross73 continues to write. It's basically a personal issue with this one obnoxious person. Consensus has been reached over and over by multiple people versus only one person and his lackey who continue to insist they are right on their "stance." Even Sergecross in another place in wikipedia which I cited, goes against this consensus. Yet I see you defer to him in the talk page just now. He has shown himself to be unreliable, unknowledgeable about game development (he used to credit Yuji Naka as lead design), and is just very dense. So why is his opinion more important than any facts or citations thrown his way? I want you to explain to me, Ferret, why a wikipedia admin gets to have final say on a page? Why is it that only a consensus can be reached with the participation of an admin? when if you read the wiki rules on admins, this is not actually what admins are for. So tell me why you make this his final decision? Do you think that is right here? Please answer. "Although administrators do have certain powers, you need good judgment to use them. Nevertheless, this does not mean that administrators should act like police or judges." 70.112.44.202 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests should not be used to carry on conversations, or criticize the behavior of others; they are for requesting to be unblocked, which this does not do. That said, you were clearly edit warring and gave no indication that you intended to change your ways; in fact, you suggest the opposite. Until you admit that you acted improperly and indicate how you will handle editing disputes in the future. you will not be unblocked before the block expires. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2018 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn't asking you, since you clearly have no idea of the situation. I am asking for ferret to answer these questions. 70.112.44.202 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you don't want admins to review your block, don't use the {{unblock}} template. You should, however, address your own conduct and the block, not carry on the conversation, or access to this talk page may also be revoked. Huon (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2018 (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.

---