Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your IP address, 173.209.178.244, is registered to Rocky Mount Greenlight and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.
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.
If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Welcome!
A cup of hot tea to welcome you!
Hello, 173.209.178.244, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
If you think something on the page doesn't make sense and should be worded more clearly, it would be best to rewrite it and make it clearer. Just deleting a whole section of sourced content is not productive.
@Tillerh11: In most circumstances I would agree with you. But in this case the section is so poorly written that it is incomprehensible. I would rewrite it if I could understand it, but it makes no sense. Do you understand it? If so be my guest to rewrite. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with WP:WEIGHT. You pick one source of criticism without any attempt at a broader representation of critiques of his works simply because you like it. In any event, if you wish to challenge this please take it to article's talk page, not here. Thank you. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: According to whom, besides you? Please link the policy or guideline stating that it is "standard wording". "Best known" is a personal opinion. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
June 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.
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).
I'm not asking for an unblock because it's pointless, and I apologize for wasting an admin's time to have to check this page. But I need to state for the record that I am not the "Best Known" sock. As noted above, my ISP is located in Rocky Mount-Wilson NC. I have never encountered the "Best Known" sock, but I think if you look at their edits you won't see an edit from this location. To those involved in the complaint against me and the block, I realize you're acting in good faith. It's unfortunate that IPs have to endure this. This may be viewed as a reason to register, but for some of us it's the opposite. It's a reason to just stop making any useful contributions. Sorry again to anyone that I've inconvenienced. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (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.
July 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Demi Lovato. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The personal attack wasn't necessary nor civil. I've been asking for editors to strictly observe BLP on the Demi Lovato article. That's it - no more, no less. StrikerforceTalk17:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Strikerforce: Please give me a direct quotation in which I did not assume good faith. I asked for clarification of your comments, and I made suggestions to all editors about a source. If anyone is not assuming good faith it is you in issuing this warning, but I will assume you meant no harm. I hope you can take my comments as an effort to improve Wikipedia rather than directed at you personally. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the page in question, "When the article is unprotected, no one needs admin approval (or Strikeforce's approval)...." That's not being civil and could be interpreted as a personal attack. StrikerforceTalk18:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Strikerforce: I must respectfully disagree. I stated a fact: No one needs admin approval or your approval to edit the article when protection is lifted. Are you disputing that? May I suggest that we both move on because there are far more important things to do here than bicker. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to the wrong comment on your part. There was no need to include the jab at me in your comment about how, when the page is unprotected, anyone may make an edit. I have no problem clarifying my comments and I did so, in response to your statement. That's not the part with which I have an issue. StrikerforceTalk18:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as Wikipedia is not Facebook, I'll ask that you stop pinging me in your responses to this discussion. I have your Talk page watched. If you reply, it'll show up in my watchlist. I don't need to get the notifications from a ping on this specific matter. Thanks. StrikerforceTalk18:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not harassing this user. I'm asking them to realize and admit that they're reacting to my thoughts on the wrong statement. I've tried, repeatedly, to clarify, and they're either not getting what I am telling them or choosing to ignore it. They, and others on the article in question's Talk, seem to have an issue with my desire for us to strictly adhere to BLP. This editor fired an unnecessary sarcastic and uncivil remark in my direction and I've tried to engage - civilly - to diffuse the disagreement. That's all. I'll refrain from further response here, having said that. StrikerforceTalk18:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime Phone: I will clarify - our comments were caught up in an edit conflict. My comments were started directly under the IP's comment, "And I'll kindly ask you to stop harassing me...". I was answering that statement, not yours. I apologize for the confusion. StrikerforceTalk19:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
February 2019
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making (or attempting to make) disruptive edits that repeatedly triggered the edit filter.
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).
I was trying to make a reliably sourced direct quotation stated by Mary Ann Lisanti, in which she used the n-word. If you look at the article, a registered user made the same edit here (without the source). I was not attempting to vandalize with a racial slur, just provide a quotation. The reason I tried repeatedly is that I removed letters from the word to try to get it past the filter, but the filter was triggered by the single letter "n". 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The problem was, that information was already contained in the article. Additionally, it's far from the only problem edit cause by the edit filter. Now, admittedly I don't often look at people tripping the edit filter and admittedly some or many of these edits may have been performed by someone else using this IP address, but I've never seen a list of edit-filter preventions as long as from this IP address. Once the block expires, I recommend creating an account so your edits aren't lumped together with others operating from this IP address. Note that you have not convinced me this IP address should be unblocked, but I wouldn't object if you are able to convince another admin. Yamla (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2019 (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).
With all due respect, but the information was not already in the article. I don't know if you can look at the times the filter was triggered and look at the article as it was when the filter was first triggered. If so it should clearly indicate that the information was not in the article at that time. I did in fact make all of the edits as far as I know. As I explained, I was trying to reduce the number of letters in a six-letter word beginning with "n", one letter at a time. When it got to the single letter "n" the filter was still triggered. That's when I stopped trying. To be honest, I can easily not edit for the duration of this block, or go to a different internet connection. It's the principle of being blocked without vandalism, by making the exact same edit that a registered user made without triggering the filter. That looks bad for Wikipedia, but at least I have tried to set the record straight. I won't make another unblock request. Thanks. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It appears that this static line has one machine, one user ( Technically indistinguishable) and a bunch of wikilawyering in the past. Threats to sock make matters worse. — Berean Hunter(talk)12:46, 2 March 2019 (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.
May 2019
Hi, I'm 72.95.9.17. I noticed you deleted my edits on List of backmasked messages. I think what you did was a mistake as I was adding to the incomplete list. I wasn't causing harm to any info on the page. Please consider this warning and think about your actions. Thank you. 72.95.9.17 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
July 2019
Your recent editing history at List of common misconceptions shows that you are currently 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. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.
I'm sure you're already aware of the 3RR policy, but a template warning is necessary prior to an edit warring noticeboard report.
Once again, I urge you to stop reverting and patiently spend the necessary time to find consensus on the talk page. All of your edits will eventually be reverted if consensus doesn't support them, so you might as well work on that and not waste your time repeatedly making changes that lack the necessary support.Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jdcomix. I noticed that in this edit to Sun King (song), you removed content without adequately 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. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcomix: READ MY EDIT SUMMARY. It says "unsourced". The information that was removed was unsourced. Please don't leave false warnings simply because the editor is not registered. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was explanation. It is clearly a PR stunt to hype a Super Bowl ad, and even a company rep stated that he's more than likely going to come back to life in some way during the ad. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: Except Planters did make the announcement and it is properly sourced. That much is a fact. Yes, it may be a PR stunt, but that does not negate the fact that Planters announced it. I suggest that you restore it with any other sourced statement that it may be a comic book death. No need to delete it entirely. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
