71.174.128.111

April 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Never Gonna Give You Up. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen - I made no posts on this article Never Gonna Give You Up - Fake News!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Never_Gonna_Give_You_Up&action=history

Yes, you did. [1] Or, at least, somebody from this IP did. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

All I can say is that your software sucks! The only IP posting on that article today was 47.54.122.211!!!! Click on the link provided for proof.71.174.128.111 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This was 10 years ago. Adam9007 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If that was to me, the recent history of that article shows

curprev 00:44, 29 April 2020‎ 47.54.122.211 talk‎ 29,623 bytes +13‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit

which is today and which is not me!71.174.128.111 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant. The warning was for an edit from this IP on the date noted above. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This warning was left 10 years ago and relates to an edit made 10 years ago by someone who used the same IP address as you are now. It's nothing to do with you, unless you're the same person? Adam9007 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't me! I have no interest in that article. I may change articles in ways you don't like, but I don't vandalize them. Aside from a typo here and there.71.174.128.111 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

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 Talk:Book of Daniel, you may be blocked from editing. You've admitted you've been blocked for disrupting the talk page before. Any further disruption will lead to another block. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

The above is a standard template for disruption. Frankly, you're lucky I checked to see if your last block had expired and didn't just block you on the spot for admitting to ban evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Book of Daniel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

I am pointing out sections of the Book of Daniel which are either not covered or inadequately covered.71.174.128.111 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours from certain namespaces (Talk) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 10:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

Block for posting from a range of IP's

Ahem! Everyone posts from a range of IP's! Go block yourself because you are doing it as well!

smiley face!

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Minoan eruption. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

MY addition to the article was a follows - I consider this in the realm of common knowledge to those that HAVE some level of education on the subject. It therefore does not need to be referenced - it has been added to the talk page of that article for discussion.

One source of C14 deficient carbon would be the volcano itself. C14 is created by cosmic ray bomardment in the upper atmosphere. Carbon inside the earth does not take part in this process and is C14 deficient compared to carbon in the atmosphere. If the volcano emitted carbon gas for extended periods of time, some of this gas would have been absorbed by surrounding plant life, making them C14 deficient compared to plants far from the volcano. Carbon dating would therefore date plants near the volcano as older then those further away. Because the half life of C14 is over 5,000 years, if 1% of the carbon in nearby plant life was sourced form carbon emitted by the volcano, it would be dated about 100 years older per C14 dating.

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yamla (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked again

I think this time it was because I asked if the cites sources for Alexander being reference in the Book of Daniel were sufficient.71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record after being warned above I made 3 posts

1: Added proposed changes to the talk page for the Thera eruption - can't see how this could be a reason for a ban

2: Pointed out on the Book of Daniel talk page that I was using a Bible translation that implies only one Messiah (or annointed one) while wikipedia uses a translation that implies two Messiahs. Can't see how this will be a reason for a ban

3) I asked the person, who minutes later got me banned, if he was OK with the sources provided refuting his position on Alexander being mentioned in the Book of Daniel. I can 100% see how a small minded individual, who has had his position demolished, would ban me just to get rid of me!

Can you feel the love?

Toodles!18:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that this latest block includes a ban on account creation!

18:18, 3 May 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs blocked 71.174.128.111 talk with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) (

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yamla (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

and more)

Not to worry! I have zero interest in creating an account 71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be silly to block you but let you evade the block through an account. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated above I made 3 posts after being warned. Which one caused me to be banned?71.174.128.111 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Book of Daniel

Hi, I reverted your new section in Talk:Book of Daniel, "7 weeks or seven weeks of years - 1 Messiah or 2" – if you wish to propose edits to the Book of Daniel article you need to provide citations to reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY) – bible quotes count as primary sources (see WP:PSTS) – your own interpretations of bible quotes count as original research (see WP:OR and WP:NOR) – the article Talk page is not a forum for discussion of original ideas (see WP:NOTFORUM), nor it is a platform for promotion of your own ideas (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX) – if you have valuable suggestions for additions to the Book of Daniel article, please provide supporting references to reliable sources – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you the one that said to ignore my posts?

The differing translations are a valid topic for that article. One translation explicitly states that the time period in question is "70 weeks of years". Others translate to "weeks", and others translate the period to "sevens". I hope that you can agree that 70 weeks is a much different period than 70 weeks of years or 490 years (70 times 7).

BTW Have you yet come to the realization that Alexander the Great was Greek or are you still holding out?71.174.128.111 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month from certain namespaces (Talk) for Continued talk page abuses.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked again

This time it could just be because I pointed out that there are multiple translations of the Bible and some are preferable to others!

Probably per the wishes of a person who has yet to realize that Alexander the Great was Greek! At least he was the one who reverted at least one of my posts.71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop it

You've been blocked from editing in the Talk namespace. Simply shifting your posts from there to user talk pages is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the block. Edits like this and this are inappropriate. They belong on the article's talk page, which you are currently prevented from editing. So, please stop making those comments. --Yamla (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are now blocked for WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA, and generally disruptive editing. You are welcome to return once your block expires, but any further behaviour like I've seen from you today will result in a substantially increased block. WP:GAB explains how to contest this block. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you another village idiot? How am I supposed to know what I was banned for? I asked - see above - but I got no response.

See above and answer the question. Was I banned for responding to a request for citations or another reason?71.174.128.111 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proof of village idiotdom - I am banned from editing articles, editing article talk pages and now users talk page. Is there any place else where I can be benned from except this page? How are you going to expand the ban? HHHHMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

---