User talk:67.72.98.84

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 67.72.98.84). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on [[User_talk:{{{1}}}|my Talk page]] – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Deckiller 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 
   This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Benon 21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
2. 

   You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.
   RexNL 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Basketball. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Fang Aili ^說嗎? 18:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ccwaters 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sam Vimes 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Rock (entertainer) may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Vengeful Cynic 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Evolution

Your recent edit to Evolution (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 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, for the sake of understanding, why do you think Evolution never happened? And why do you vandalise articles to make your point? Are you trying to convince yourself? Would you feel it was justified when someone vandalises articles on religion calling them myths? CM

[edit] Edit of Freedom of speech

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jfredrickson 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Mark Foley scandal

You've twice removed the characterizations of the IMs as sexually explicit. I don't think that characterization is libel. Libel has to be untrue, and the emails are clearly sexually explicit. You've said they are "POV," but on the contrary I think it is an accurate NPOV description. I think NOT having them is POV because it would muffle the seriousness of his actions. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page for that article so the Wikipedia community can reach some consensus.--Bibliophylax 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All characterizations are POV. Yours was potentially libelous POV. If you really want to tie these descriptors in, find someone noteworthy that claimed this also and then quote them. For example, if you say "Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman..." that's a fact. Bill Clinton did say that. If you leave out the quote and simply say "Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman," that's POV. Understand? --67.72.98.84 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV to get a better understanding of what is POV and NPOV. Further, note that the it is sourced later in the article. Please stop removing it. Thank you. JoshuaZ 03:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

There is nothing libelous or POV about stating that an instant message in which Foley talks about masturbation is "sexually suggestive." In fact, that's a very mild way of putting it. This is clearly not a BLP issue because this is a fact not in dispute. You are encouraged to not disrupt the page by further reversions, as you have reached your three revert rule limit. More changes may subject you to being blocked. FCYTravis 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. The claim the emails are "sexually suggestive" is your opinion. It is not fact. It is a potentially libelous opinion. Don't forget this wikipedia rule:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

It's sourced, and not poorly. There are 3 references to major media after that first sentence. Derex 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The first source calls it "overtly sexual" and the third calls some of them "sexually explicit". This is well sourced. JoshuaZ 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then post it as a quote of someone else's opinion. For example, if you say "Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman..." that's a fact even if Bill Clinton was lying. Bill Clinton did say that. If you leave out the quote and simply say "Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman," that's POV. Understand?

Why do you keep inserting the word "pro-choice" in the first sentence. What has that got to do with anything? Derex 03:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Three_revert_rule before you are blocked for violating it. Since it is not libelious to describe sourced messages about penis size and the like as sexually suggestive, I don't buy that you're working under an exception to the rule.

Familiarize yourself with this Wikipedia policy and don't you dare ever delete anything from my discussion page again. That's an automatic ban.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Media articles that term Foley's messages "sexually suggestive": [1] (693)

Media articles that term Foley's messages "sexually explicit": [2] (1,701)

Moncrief 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Quote these sources in the article. Not here. Nomatter how many sources you list here, the article will still be POV - potentially libelous POV without direct quoting and sourcing.

If you think those sourced need to be there put them in, stop reverting. And certainly stop putting in the completely irrelevant note about him being pro-choice. If you revert again, you will be reported for 3RR. JoshuaZ 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If pro-choice is irrelevant "Republican" is irrelevant too. Should we take them both out?

Pro choice is one issue among many. Republican is his general party affiliation and thus matters a lot. JoshuaZ 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice is a Barometer for many that denotes a Republican as a moderate and does describe a general philosophy. Saying "moderate", however, is POV. If "Republican" needs to stay so does pro-choice.

It is not sufficiently so, if you think moderate needs to be sourced and put in there then source it and put it in. Pro-choice is not relevant (in fact, using it as a "barometer" is itself a POV issue). JoshuaZ 03:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported for violating the three-revert rule. The report may be found on WP:AN3. Note that blanking the report is vandalism, and will be dealt with accordingly. --Coredesat (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You've been reported for a 3RR violation at Mark Foley scandal and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. In future, please discuss your edits on the talk page when there are objections and try to reach a compromise. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that another editor has blocked you for longer in the meantime — a week as things stand — so I'll hand this over to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was only after a protracted session of editing the potentially libelous material finally became sourced. As the article stands right now, the claims are still potentially libelous POV.

[edit] Are you Mark Foley?

Just wondering....

[edit] Your edit to Huns

Your recent edit to Huns (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 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Huns. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Irongargoyle 18:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]