User talk:24.147.97.230

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. - Tεxτurε 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 06:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ted Kennedy

"Surrogate father" doesn't necessarily mean biological father...maybe a different term should be used, but I think it only means to say that he was close to his nieces and nephews. Thus, I reverted your edit. --- Mike 04:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, "witnessed" the assassination is loose language, but I'm sure they meant "went through" rather than "saw personally"...you can change the phrasing to that if you think it's clearer. --- Mike 04:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to report a dispute over content as vandalism. If you wish other editors to become involved in a content discussion, please use Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Gamaliel 20:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I arrived a little late. Forgive me. Tom Haws 13:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect references to vandalism

Your attention is called to Gamaliel's statement on 6 August that it is incorrect to report a dispute over content as vandalism. It is similarly incorrect to indicate in an edit summary that deletion of material whose value is questioned is vandalism. Robert McClenon 15:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It Helps to Create an Account

There have been some edits from this IP address that may be reasonable but may be unreasonable. I am not making a judgment.

If anyone has been editing from this address on a subject other than Edward Kennedy, it might be a good idea to create an account in case this address is blocked. Robert McClenon 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Please adhere to the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. The rule applies to users, not accounts or IP addresses, so using another IP address to make additional reverts is not permitted. Gamaliel 16:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman

Do not alter the statement of the dispute again. You are free to respond in your own section at length, but if you forge or alter the comments of others again you will be blocked for vandalism. Gamaliel 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Read and follow the format and instructions of the RfC. It is not your sandbox and you are not free to spew your rants all over it. You are free to write whatever you want if you stay within the perscribed format and put unrelated material on the talk page. It is not that difficult to understand. Just color inside the lines. Gamaliel 03:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Create a Signed-In Account

This IP address is apparently being used by an Internet troll. If anyone is using this IP address to make constructive edits to Wikipedia, they may consider creating a signed-in account so that they will not be blocked if the troll is disruptive. Robert McClenon 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please See Request for Comments

A request for comments has been posted concerning a user of this address. Robert McClenon 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To any other users of this address

If anyone is using this address who is not the subject of the conduct described in the RfC, please consider creating an account so as not to be blocked. Robert McClenon 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Did someone put User:Robert McClenon in charge while I was sleeping? Where is rule that says others can't login from the same IP address? Also the vote is overwhelming in the RfC, so why would anyone be blocked?--Agiantman 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop

I'm trying to tone down the rhetoric. Keeping RFCs on the page are not neccessary. Please use user talk pages for personal discussion and RfC announcements. I would like to keep the article talk page to discuss the article -- not users. Thanks for your help. You only strengthen your opinion by cooperating and helping out. Thanks in advance - Sleepnomore 22:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One more attempt

I understand your idea here, but it really isn't acceptable. That isn't what the article talk pages are used for. I don't hold a real opinion on these pages other than the disputes are out of control. I did provide feedback which stated that I am in favor of keeping controversial material in there. The point is, you can't expect to be taken serious when you are arguing minor points and making waves where they aren't neccessary. Leave your arguments on a point by point basis and make them refute them. That's the only way you are going to win -- not with continued dispute over where the RfC's are announced. I'm not telling you to drop the RfC. That's up to you. I'm telling you to keep it to talk pages. I'm not a policeman of the sites, I'm simply trying to make this article work for everyone and we can't come to an agreement while this bickering goes on around article discussion. Common man. This really is pettty and you know it. Don't let them get to you and bring you to their level. = Sleepnomore 00:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

A Request for Arbitration has been filed. Please read it. Robert McClenon 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciated.

Your efforts at humanizing the participants, and working towards consensus, are most appreciated, even if removed due to applicability to that talk page's contents. You should consider creating an account, so more of Wikipedia can get to know you better.

You have my thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please create an Account

This will make editing more convenient and will lend you additional credibility.Voice of All(MTG) 22:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?...

Please do not accuse people of vandalism unless it really is. Anyway I have added 1 paragraph that will probalby get deleted, perhaps I will revert once, whatever...Voice of All(MTG) 05:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

You have been blocked for violating the 3RR rule on Ted Kennedy: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. You also have been repeatedly warned about your inaccurate edit summaries describing content disputes as "vandalism". This is also a violation of wikipedia rules. Please refrain from breaking these rules in the future. Gamaliel 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy case. Raul654 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.147.97.230.html"