User talk:130.159.248.1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you wish to contribute to this encyclopedia, please
create an account at home and log in with it here.

Due to persistent vandalism, editing by anonymous users from your school, library, or institution's IP address is currently disabled. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this address is probably also disabled.

  • If accounts need to be created at school for class projects, please have your teacher or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at unblock-en-l from an email address listed on your school's website.
  • Alternatively, if you have no Internet access at home, you may email us using your school-issued email address and an account will be created for you.

Thank you.

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 130.159.248.1, is registered to University of Strathclyde and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. In the case of institutions using proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may get blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from this IP address may be disabled for up to 6 months at a time while abuse reports may be forwarded to your school administration for investigation in case of long-term abuse by registered users.

Contents

[edit] December 2005

This message is regarding the page Digital Equipment Corporation. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] March 2006

  1. 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. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Chuck Norris, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Aegwyn 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Aegwyn 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires.  Grue  13:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. 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. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April 2006

Your recent edit to Steven Seagal 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 our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For frequently asked questions about the bot please click here // Tawkerbot2 13:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Steven Seagal, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. mensch • t 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on 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. 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. Ian Pitchford 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 2006

Your recent edit to ISO 9000 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 our 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. // Tawkerbot2 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you really think that you could add commercial advertising to a Wikipedia article (ISO 9000) and get away with it? (I'm assuming you have some interest in the company PGC). ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to PREM DURAI

Your recent edit to PREM DURAI 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. // Tawkerbot2 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning
I have just reverted your vandalism to Wikipedia and I am warning you to stop this behavior now. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly. You may continue editing, but unless all future edits are constructive you will be blocked without further warning. --Bhadani 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Polar bear

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Caliga10 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again for vandalism

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Gwernol 11:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 2006 vandalism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Fart. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gzkn 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

... nor incorrectly change specific facts in articles as in [1]. Rwendland 13:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Bective Rangers on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 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. Budgiekiller 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I should point out that this IP address is for the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, around 30,000 students have access to the internet using this IP address so there should be no attempt made to block it in my opinion (I see there was already one above). It's a certainty with all IP addresses belonging to a large institution such as a university that there will be the occasional 'bad egg' guilty of vandalism, but this is generally unavoidable and it seems a little counter-productive to ban an IP address used by tens of thousands of people on the basis of what one user has done. Personally I have my own registered account, but I occasionally use the internet access at my university's library to edit pages. Jason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.159.248.1 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
On the other hand the ratio of destructive to constructive edits from this IP is woefully high. More importantly blocking this address is done for IP users only. Constructive users can still register a username and continue to edit even if the IP is blocked. Registering a username is free, takes about 20 seconds and gives you more anonymity than editing under an IP. Its a win-win. If the current level of vandalism continues from this IP, it will get blocked again, and given the long history of damaging edits the block is likely to be long. Please register a username. Gwernol 20:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated I personally have an account, but I'd still have to disagree with the idea of banning it because of vandalism. I accept your point that the record of vandalism from the address may be poor but when the address is banned we're not banning the individuals who have vandalised articles we're banning 30,000 people - the vast majority of whom have no intention of vandalising entries. It's a fairly obvious point to say that the more people who access the internet from a particular address the more instances of vandalism will appear, but if we were to use that logic to ban IPs then we may as well ban all non-registered editing as this would be just as much of a win-win situation.
The fact that wikipedia doesn't do this is because it presumably has negative ramifications for the amount of entries - and if you look at the history of the IP address there have been numerous contributions that are valuable and specialised (as you would expect for the IP address of a university). The logic of banning IP addresses as far as I understood it was that if a particular user displays a tendency to vandalise articles, then that person is more than likely only accessing wikipedia to cause mischief and should be denied editing privileges. I don't see how this translates to a situation involving 30,000 individuals, it's surely not correct to say that the actions of a minority allow us to conclude that 30,000 separate individuals are more than likely here just to engage in vandalism. As far as I'm concerned that's no more valid than saying that because a minority of internet users in general have engaged in vandalism we should ban all IP addresses or all unregistered editing. I think in this instance we should follow the message at the top of the page that -
"Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block..." blankfrackis 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes a soft block. One which allows registered users to continue to edit. Which is exactly what I proposed and exactly the block I have just used below. If the vandalistic edits outnumber the good edits its an overall benefit to block this IP. Asking good contributors to create an account is not burdensome. Gwernol 16:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not burdensome to ask an individual user to create an account, there can be no question that it does reduce the number of contributions which are made overall however, which as I say is no doubt the reason why Wikipedia still allows unregistered users to edit the entries despite the fact that the vast majority of vandalism comes from unregistered users and as you say, it's not burdensome for an individual to create an account. I see it's already been blocked however, so this is a moot point. If that's your decision then there's nothing I can do about it. blankfrackis 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --TeaDrinker 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again for vandalism

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia because of 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, or deliberate misinformation; privacy violations; personal attacks; and repeated and blatant violations of WP:NPOV will not be tolerated. Gwernol 16:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Balloch Castle and Balloch Country Park

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

--JohnPomeranz 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia because of 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 neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. WinHunter (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 2007

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Lenzie Academy. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. SimDarthMaul 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Fraslet 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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 neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. --Guinnog 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/3/0/User_talk%7E130.159.248.1.html"