Welcome! Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! This IP address, 198.70.2.200, is registered to Lason Corporation - Irving, Texas, USA and may be shared by many users of an enterprise network, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators monitoring this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it.
October 2007 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dire Wolf, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply July 2008 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Keego Harbor, Michigan has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Spencer T♦ C 18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply March 2010 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Bassoon has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 11:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply January 2014 Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chantel Jeffries with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply September 2020 Hello, I'm DoebLoggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bolo Yeung, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DoebLoggs ( talk) 12:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieWikiDan ( talk) 12:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply RAS syndrome Can't ping IPs, see Talk:RAS syndrome - wolf 20:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply April 2021 Do not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia. Such attempts to avoid detection, circumvent policies or evade blocks or sanctions will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. also posted to User talk:184.1.1.160 - wolf 20:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RAS syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 20:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}.   Daniel Case ( talk) 02:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Itcouldbepossible. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:Rosa Bonheur—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 13:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You're telling me that if a person fully admits that they "think men are stupid" and that "men are inferior" that's not misandry? How is the literal truth, using a defined word, not correct? Additionally, one shouldn't delete the contents on the Talk pages, that's literally what they are for. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Talk pages are for discussing changes and imrpovements to the article, not posting personal opinions about the article subject. That said, if you were to suggest adding content that notes she is or was considered a "misandrist" in reliable sources, and include those sources, then that would be a suitable use of the talk page. (No guarantee that it would be added to the article though). - wolf 20:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mosquitofish, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CodeTalker ( talk) 16:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
This disruptive edit warring and WP:EVASION needs to stop. You now have the attention of multiple admins, including C.Fred and Paul Erik, among others, what do you expect to accomplish with this behaviour? Either wait out your block, or try to successfully appeal it. Once you are free to edit again, seek to make your changes according to the policies and guidelines of this project. - wolf 00:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Thewolfchild. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to RAS syndrome have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - wolf 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Define redundant. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at RAS syndrome, you may be blocked from editing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} ( talk | contribs) 16:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm making a 100% accurate contribution. wolfchild keeps reverting my accurate edit. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ricardo López (stalker). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 19:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RAS syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 16:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Edit warring takes two. Stop reverting my 100% accurate edit and there's no edit war. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Accuracy is not an exception to WP:3RR. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

There were only multiple reversals because my accurate contribution was reverted by someone else. Again, edit warring takes two. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Conversely, your edit was reverted repeatedly because you failed to adhere to the established consensus. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

So why does edit warring only apply to me? 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Who else violated 3RR? For that matter, who else is already under sanction for violating 3RR, for edits made on 10 November? — C.Fred ( talk) 16:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

wolfchild reverted it at least three times. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages ( RAS syndrome) until 28 Feb 2023 for persistent edit warring across multiple IPs.

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 ~~~~}}.  — C.Fred ( talk) 16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Since another IP you use has been full blocked for your behaviour, this IP is also blocked from editing anywhere on Wikipedia now. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:198.70.2.200 reported by User:Throast (Result: ). Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} ( talk | contribs) 16:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 16:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:198.70.2.200 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: ). Thank you. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.   Bbb23 ( talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was in the middle of TRYING to reach a consensus 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 19:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)  reply

Decline reason:

Not really a reason for unblock. — Daniel Case ( talk) 07:33, 22 November 2022 (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.

198.70.2.200 ( talk) 19:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Consensus was already reached on the Ricardo Lopez talk page. It was agreed that the audio is muffled. So muffled, in fact, that enough people hear him say 'victory' that a tag was required telling people not to change it to 'victory' 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC) 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Only one unblock request at a time.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

If I hadn't been blocked for making an edit that I had consensus on, this whole thing would be a non-issue. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 19:52, 21 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for making an edit on which consensus was already reached on the talk page 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 13:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Please show where that consensus was reached, but that does not justify edit warring. 331dot ( talk) 14:00, 22 November 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

On the Ricardo Lopez talk page the user I was discussing it with agreed that the audio was muffled. Whoever added the 'Do not put Victory here' tag here also seemed to agree, as enough people heard him say 'victory' that it warranted a tag prohibiting it. As for the edit warring, the consensus was already reached before I made the first edit. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 14:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)  reply

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as user can no longer edit this talk page, so there's no point in leaving the request open. — Daniel Case ( talk) 07:47, 23 November 2022 (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.

198.70.2.200 ( talk) 14:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

What you say is not true. In 2020 one editor agreed that the audio was "muffled", which of course is not a consensus, but even if it were, that did not mean that they agreed that the entire statement was "incoherent" as there was sourced information as to what Lopez said. And why on earth did you create such a childish section header for this unblock request?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I mean I can't MAKE people discuss it. The one person that did take part in the discussion agreed that it was muffled. If only two people are having the discussion and they agree, that's consensus. And the source was literally just an article from one guy, and is what's being disputed in the first place.

Just trying to lighten the mood. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

So how about it? 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 16:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You shouldn't have been editing, as you are currently blocked on another account. - wolf 17:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I was only blocked in the first place because of a few spiteful users who completely ignored the reasoning for my edits. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You are ignoring the sock puppet statement. — Moops ^{⋠ T⋡} 17:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Again, I was only blocked in the first place because wolfchild and Jacona were operating on emotion instead of reason. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Attacking other editors doesn't help with unblock requests normally. — Moops ^{⋠ T⋡} 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't consider that an attack, just an observation. I made sound cases for all of my edits. 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Look, I appreciate and understand the need for these guidelines. I'm a stickler for being technically correct myself, it is the best kind of correct. That's why it's frustrating to be technically accurate but then be railed against by a few users who already have a bias against me. I was asked repeatedly to gain consensus for my edits. Is there anywhere I can do that objectively? And not just the article talk page? 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• I have revoked TPA because of the connection with the blocked named account Kompress0.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply