User talk:92.24.3.41

Attention:

This IP address, 92.24.3.41, is registered to Opal Telecom. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report.

If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time.

If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.
Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.

Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (92.24.3.41) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Scott Oake, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. See the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia constructively. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Freshfighter9^talk 15:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scott Oake, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Freshfighter9^talk 16:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding of potentially libelous material

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Scott Oake, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. The material in question is of a potentially libelous nature, and no sources can be found to back up your claims, which most definitely adds to their dubiousness and seems to point in the direction of vandalism. See the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia constructively. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Freshfighter9^talk 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
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, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Reso lute 14:29, 26 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

i was given a warning because peers considered my edits to scott oake. i was told that if I were to repost the charges, i would be blocked. I then decided to instead add a new section re: his famous hairdo. There was absolutely nothing negative or libelous about what I wrote, but it was reverted and I was immediately blocked by a peer who has had no contact with me ever in the past. did they even read my but? i think no. i wanted to add to the commen knowledge of the internet with a quick summary of his hair for future generations to know about other stuff other than just the boring basics. i wanted to give a bit of life to Scott Oake's article because he brings so much joy into my life! I dont think it was deservable for me to be banned for it.

Decline reason:

You were disruptively editing and continued eve after being asked to stop. Simple as that. TN X Man 11:54, 28 July 2010 (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.

Give it up. Vandalism is vandalism. Freshfighter9^talk 11:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. DJSasso (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was warned about adding potentially libelous material to articles. Since that initial warning, I have been blocked twice now for allegedly repeatedly inserting said libelous material. If you were to look at the additions I made immediately prior to being blocked, you would notice that there is nothing libelous about the material. At the top of the page in question, Wikipedia requests that users "improve this article by expanding it". I added a section about his hairdo, which in Canada is a source of interest. The inclusion of such material should surely be subject to proper discussion. Instead, I find myself twice blocked from participation (seemingly for edits made prior to the events). I am not attempting to insert libelous material, so why have I been repeatedly blocked with "inserting libelous material" as the given reason?

Decline reason:

Adding 'facts' to an article on a living person without sources is a violation of our WP:BLP policy, as your block log states. Considering your previous blocks for indeed adding libelous material to the talk page, I find no fault in this block. Further disruption will lead to longer blocks. Syrthiss (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2010 (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.

No, what you added was comments about men wanting to be him and women wanting him. All of which are disruptive edits. Continuing to be disruptive on this article will result in longer and longer blocks. It would be best if you just walk away from this article. You've also commented on his reputation which could also be libelous, especially when you know darn well none of the information you added is true. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@92.24.3.41: I must admit, this whole thing seems rather pointless, does it not? The one and only thing you will ultimately accomplish is getting yourself banned from editing. What is your motivation? You aren't what I consider a "typical" vandal as you are only targeting this one article. Why target a low-profile Canadian sportscaster? Do you even know who Scott Oake is? Freshfighter9^talk 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Scott Oake 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. elektrik SHOOS 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Scott Oake. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. elektrik SHOOS 08:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Scott Oake has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDEk4HK1no, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTa3h7pN8J0. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Scott Oake 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDEk4HK1no, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTa3h7pN8J0. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

As the banner at the top of the page suggests, I've been trying to expand an article by adding additional sections. I've made notes on the talk page of the article regarding the additions. I've also included requests for assistance, and instead of help I get barred again. I was under the impression that once a block has run its course, Wikipedia was to put the in the past and move forward. I am experiencing the opposite. Editors are not assuming good faith (despite the obvious nature of the material) and are resorting to blocks rather than engaging in a discussion. I want to improve this article.

Decline reason:

You ARE blocked for the exact thing: continued addition of unreferenced material, contrary to WP:BLP, so your block length is increasing. Now you're also using non-valid sources such as youtube to back it up. I have added some helpers to the top of this page - you have a week to learn them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 3 August 2010 (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.

Comment You keep adding the same bit of rather unencyclopedic and unsourced (YouTube is not a reliable source) material, even though you have been told repeatedly not to. It is the very same thing for which you have previously been blocked. Favonian (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

As I mentioned - this is not the same as my previous blocks. I was blocked for adding a section regarding his ***** allegations - as the administrators found it to be libelous. In an attempt to expand the page, I have tried to add some non-libelous material with references. The references I included were clips of his TV segments hosted on youtube.com. I don't understand why they aren't acceptable. They clearly are clips from a show hosted by the subject himself. Or is his presence in the clips debated? I don't understand. Nobody responds to anything on the article's talk page, and I was trying to BE BOLD, as they say.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for adding unsourced libelous information, however adding any information which is unsourced or poorly sourced is still a violation of WP:BLP. Please read the helpful links someone posted above and stop adding such information to the article. DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2010 (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.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your continued addition of questionable content to Scott Oake. The thread is 92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake. Thank you. --elektrik SHOOS 23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for abuse

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from Scott Oake

Hello 92.24.3.41. When you return to editing after your block, you must not edit the Scott Oake article or discuss Scott Oake in any other articles or talk pages, per this decision at WP:ANI. This restriction can be enforced by blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Pierre McGuire, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2010 (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.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.