User talk:205.211.52.10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to George W. Bush. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --W.marsh 14:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Built to Spill

Thanks for your compliment. I will try to find a more recent photo of the band to put in the article this week. There certainly have been changes since that photo was taken . . . - Jersyko·talk 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Lebanon. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. – Gurch 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on Black British

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Wildnox 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Pussy

Your recent edit to Pussy (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on October 25, 2006 to J. Philippe Rushton

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. Nishkid64 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but the community decision was reached on the talk page. If you want to discuss the page, and try to make suggestions in how the page can be fixed up and brought up to par, be my guest. If you want to discuss and/or try to validate your point, then feel free to do so in a civilized and productive manner. Thanks. Nishkid64 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the semi-protection there, but that does not mean that you should change it so drastically without discussion. If you are removing material per WP:BLP make sure you cite BLP and remove only unsourced statements. If there is some sourced criticism, it should probably stay in but be phrased in a much more neutral manner, not removed (unless it is nothing more than: "his work is laughable", which I removed) The article does need major clean up and major balancing out, but edit warring over it will not help that happen. If the revert warring continues the article might need to be fully protected.--Konst.ableTalk 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Do not threaten that they will be blocked permanently or calling other users "idiot" as you did to RamDrake and Asams10. You will be blocked if you continue to do so. This is your final and only warning. Any more of this, and you will be blocked for a period of time. Nishkid64 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for trying to help with the Rushton article

I see you attempted to work a compromise with the Rushton critics by removing both the theory and the criticism section. To me it's so obviously biased that I'm shocked that they can't see it. For example, the entire praise section is from the pioneer fund, so the praise section is just a subtle way of trying to bash him some more. I just wish they'd come out and admit that they want to censor his ideas, because this "biography's not a place to discuss his theory, but it is a place to discuss criticism of his theory is really laughable". I could even agree with removing his ideas from wikipedia because they aren't proven and could be socially damaging. But what frustrates me is that they only want to censor his theory, while using his article as a platform to completely discredit him. Minorcorrections 05:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Abhishek

Your recent edit to Abhishek (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/5/User_talk%7E205.211.52.10.html"