User talk:60.241.11.51

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! - ¡Kribbeh! ^Speak!\_Contribs 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Norlane, Victoria, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. ツ 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Enron do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

January 2013

Hello, I'm Tucoxn. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of the oldest buildings in the world because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! - ʈucoxn \^talk 00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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.

Prisoner X

Hi, I see you are adding to the Prisoner X article. I don't think the information you are adding is very relevant. The spy tactics of the Mossad and the Queen's opinion of them might be appropriate in other articles, but it's only tangentially related to Prisoner X—at least for now. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

February 2013

Hello, I'm Skamecrazy123. I noticed that you recently removed some content from House of Medici with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Not relevant to the subject matter 60.241.11.51 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Your recent editing history at House of Medici shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Glrx (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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

May 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to the page Talk:Mark Zuckerberg, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch.^TM Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Mark Zuckerberg. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tbhotch.^TM Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Mark Zuckerberg, you may be blocked from editing. Winkelvi (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Mark Zuckerberg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.^TM Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text

{{unblock|reason=Material is valid has multiple sources. For example the Mel Gibson Wikipedia page has a similar incident and I have used that to make this inclusion valid and it is perfectly valid on his page but the same seems not to apply on this page. View my last contribution and state precisely the reason why I have been blocked. I have reserved not to include it directly into the article to allow development. Please add constructive criticism rather than just deleting and blocking}}

, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Legoktm (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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).

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

Request reason:

Material is valid has multiple sources. For example the Mel Gibson Wikipedia page has a similar incident and I have used that to make this inclusion valid and it is perfectly valid on his page but the same seems not to apply on this page. View my last contribution and state precisely the reason why I have been blocked. I have reserved not to include it directly into the article to allow development. Please add constructive criticism rather than just deleting and blocking

Decline reason:

All you do, all you have been doing, is adding that exchange over and over again, without any idea, or indication that you have an idea or even understand what an idea of this would be, of how to give it context within an encylopedia article (which is amply demonstrated by one of the articles you claim as a source. You have numerous warnings for disruptive editing; I'm frankly surprised the blocking admin gave you only 31 hours after the first block was for a week, but fortunately for you I'm deferring to that admin and not extending the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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.

To further respond to your complaints that are not directly relevant to the block: I think, and I think most reasonable people would think too, that there's a great deal of difference between that exchange and the Mel Gibson incident:

Zuckerberg was not notable at the time he said that. Gibson had been for a long time.
Referring to a group of people as "dumb fucks" is not in and of itself hate speech. Using ethnic slurs or suggesting that you are being persecuted by members of a particular ethnic/religious group is.
Zuckerberg was a lot younger.

So, please, don't make this argument for false equivalence a regular part of your repertoire here. I'm not saying there isn't a place for this on Wikipedia. It seems like, properly treated, this could be in Criticism of Facebook, not the article on Zuckerberg himself as I think it's more relevant to the criticism article. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

{{unblock | reason=Your response is without any real substance, first of all the contribution is completely in the talk page! and not even in the main article. A previous version did not include sources the later version included sources for material both are deleted from the talk page (not the main article) with disregard. The Mel Gibson article which has a section Controversial Remarks which I have used to justify the nature of the contribution (to the talk page and not the main article) exposes a double standard. The reasoning given above is not as a concept but as an incident. Being young or drunk or if its hate or fun is irrelevant, its the concept that is valid. Think about it if one wikipedia article has Controversial Remarks being valid and another doesn't then you are not grasping any real standards for a valid article, purely subjective. [[Special:Contributions/60.241.11.51|60.241.11.51]] ([[User talk:60.241.11.51#top|talk]]) 02:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)}}

(Request de-activated without review as block has now expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC))[reply ]

Placed here fro safekeeping. The structure of this incident is constructed to be identical to an incident relating to for example [Gibson Controversial Remarks] incident and is perfectly allowed there but on this page it is disallowed and I have been blocked from editing either one or the other is invalid.

Controversial Remarks Alleged Calling Facebook Users "Dumb F**ks"

While at Harvard College 19-year-old Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg allegedly used login data from his social network to hack into fellow students email accounts; that evidence also included instant message transcripts where he calls facebook users "dumb fucks". The alleged following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

In another instant message (IM)

FRIEND: so have you decided what you are going to do about the websites?

ZUCK: yea i’m going to fuck them

ZUCK: probably in the year

ZUCK: *ear

sources for the above mentioned contribution:

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/01/is-zuckerbergs-the-hacker-way-letter-facebooks-dont-be-evil-and-will-it-live-up-to-it/
 http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks
 http://au.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5
 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/
 http://www.theweek.co.uk/technology/14625/are-users-%E2%80%98dumb-fucks%E2%80%99-trusting-data-facebook
 http://tdh.me/zuckerberg-called-early-facebook-users-dumb-fucks-so-what/
 http://anphicle.com/en/they-trust-me-dumb-fucks-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg/
 http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-Social-Networking-privacy-security,news-6794.html
 http://au.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuckerberg-ims-confirmed-by-zuckerberg-the-new-yorker-2010-9

May 25, 2013

You've been reported for vandalism again (the same vandalism as before), so it's only a matter of time before you are indefinitely blocked. Might as well give up now -- your "addition" to the Zuckerberg talk page is still vandalism and is just going to continue to be reverted every time you put it back in. Winkelvi (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Are you going to provide a reason for you deletion of my material?

The reason is the same as it was a couple of days ago prior to your block. Winkelvi (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Mark Zuckerberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Amaury (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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

WIKIPEDIA THE EDIT IS ON THE TALK PAGE AND NOT IN THE MAIN ARTICLE 60.241.11.51 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Legoktm (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I've extended your block to a week based on your history and interaction on this page, and what seems to be a "I don't hear you" issue. Legoktm (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The inclusion below....

Controversial Remarks Alleged Calling Facebook Users "Dumb F**ks"

Quote: To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.

!!!!THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING!!!!

REFRAIN FROM DELETING THE TALK PAGE CONTRIBUTION WITHOUT PROVIDING A VALID REASON OR BETTER TIPS FOR IMPROVEMENT. AFTER ALL THIS IS ONLY THE TALK PAGE

sources for the below mentioned contribution:

Other sections on Wikipedia where Controversial Remarks is valid:

Bryant Gumbel (section Controversial remarks)
Mel Gibson (section Controversial remarks)
Sherrod Brown (section Controversial remarks)
Kent Hovind (section Controversial remarks)
Venkaiah Naidu (section Controversial Remarks)
Greg Gutfeld (section Controversial remarks)
Lawrence Cannon (section Controversial remarks)
Daniel Bernard (diplomat) (section Controversial remark)
James R. Flynn (section Controversial remarks)

and many many more

(Redacted)

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).

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

Request reason:

Contribution is sourced, and with alternate examples of the same on other wikipedia articles. Contribution is on the talk page to garner consensus among editors before inclusion. I have followed guidelines and Winkelvi keep deleting my addition without providing reason. Quote "To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." As per instructions the addition was never included in the main article ever and has been on the talk page. Perhaps consensus means edic deletion from the talk page. The contribution is above for record showing validness of inclusion not applicable to vandalism

Decline reason:

I see no evidence whatsoever that you understand why you were blocked nor have you provided any assurances that the same disruption would not reoccur should your account be unblocked. Both of these steps are necessary for any admin to consider an unblock of your IP. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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.

Since I've already declined one of your unblocks, I'll leave this to another admin, but it seems as if you still refuse to understand that you do not get consensus here (or anywhere, for that matter) by posting the same thing over and over on a talk page and reverting its removal. That's disruptive edit warring, regardless of what namespace it occurs in. And that is why you are blocked again regardless of the substance of the edit. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Ye, then why does the block warning direct me to place it on the talk page instead which is where is always was? and why is the deletion without reason. I have provided sources and example of other pages with similar sections. Please answer. 60.241.11.51 (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Because your talk page access hasn't been revoked. Yet. I have answered; it wasn't the answer you were hoping for. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Congratulations. Your personal attacks have won you a two week vacation from Wikipedia, including this talk page. Danger ^{High voltage!} 06:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

June 2013

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.^TM Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Go fuck yourself Tbnotch I am on a public computer. Suck on it bitch face.

User info 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:60.241.11.51&oldid=561161860"