User talk:132.241.246.111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Attention:

This IP address, 132.241.246.111, is registered to California State University, Chico, and may be shared by multiple users. In the case of organizations 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 and a block shared by many. 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 see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

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

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
Grazon is known or believed to have edited with
Named Accounts:
Anonymous Accounts by way of SBC Internet Services:
  • 63.198.18.163 [contribs (29 Jul 2006 – 5 Aug 2006)]
  • 70.130.68.244 [contribs (19&27 Aug 2006)]
Anonymous Accounts by way of Verizon Internet Services:
Anonymous Accounts by way of California State University at Chico:

See also RfC/Grazon, RfC/Devilmaycares, AN/I#Block evasion by Grazon.


Contents

[edit] June 2006

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --rogerd 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Jong-il

There is no moral difference between what Kim Jong-il did and what plantation owners did in the American SW. 132.241.246.111 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but (alleged) kidnapping is still not the same thing as slave holding. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Supadawg - [[User_talk:Supadawg|Talk]] 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to the comment you left on my talk page, you cannot add biased material, and I will continue to revert any edits you make that display it. You do not own "your work", as you subjected it to the GFDL by submitting it. Supadawg - [[User_talk:Supadawg|Talk]] 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Brian Flemming. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. ShaunES 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add your own interpretations to the Thomas Logan article, Thank you. T-1000 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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. Gamaliel 23:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary[1]: 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. CovenantD 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Islam in the United Kingdom, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. —Mets501 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was vandalism because it was an attack against Islam, and did not conform to the Neutral Point of View (see WP:NPOV) —Mets501 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You could have not used the section title "Hate" and posted it in the external links section, and you could not have posted a link to such an anti-Muslim site. (Even if it was added correctly, I don't think it would stay, but it would not be considered vandalism). —Mets501 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I meant anti-Muslim page. Listen, go ask a Wikipedia administrator if they would keep the link and if they say yes then I will add it back and remove the warning. —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's just let this go. —Mets501 (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've made numerous highly questionable edits today to multiple articles, many reverted three times already by different people (Criticism of Islam, List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party, Born in the U.S.A. (song)). Please slow down, take a deep breath, and consider engaging on the talk pages of those articles if you really think these edits are legitimate. Merzbow 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. Bachrach44 19:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Angela Devi. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. Viridae 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Columbine conspiracy theories. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. Viridae 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The language used is in violation of this policy: WP:AWW. Viridae 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

the word realists violates the policy above. It is not neutral. Viridae 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You added the following line to the Warren G. Harding section of Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics on May 18, 2006:

Despite all the evidence against Harding being in the Klan we must remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I would ask that in the future that you refrain from making such weak logical, POV associations. Such a statement does not meet a test of basic logic, nor is it NPOV in the context in which you used it. Stude62 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Bill Durston 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. TheJC TalkContributions 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hmains 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this edit summary?

It's hard to see what a goatse image could have to do with Grass Valley. Please disucss yuor edits on the talk page before reverting again. -Will Beback 18:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 2006

Wikipedia articles cannot include "original research" (see the link for how it is defined). We need to rely on secondary sources that meet our standard for reliable sources. There are two parts to your insertion - one is that the (unnamed) person is a Marxist, and that people find this disturbing. You would need to find a reliable source for this information - someone else who has written about it, etc. The other issue is whether this is encyclopaedic. Why is this information significant? Is it a significant part of what makes dKosopedia worthy of an encyclopaedia article? If you believe it is, you need to make the case for this, make a case that this bit of trivia, if true, is significant. Guettarda 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we discuss my proposal instead of you reverting it? Other people may have opinions too. Shimbo 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there some kind of problem with Carl Sheeler? You have removed his mention from Democratic Underground twice now, asking for evidence. I reverted again, and added a link to his campaign site this time. Is that good enough evidence for you? Rather than just removing it, you could have added a fact tag, or at least posted something about it on the talk page. Unless you know something about it that the rest of the world doesn't, please don't remove it again. When he loses badly, he still qualifies for the section with a little rewording to change tense. Crockspot 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Thom Robb (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 17:13, 26 July 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, such as those you made to List of notable graffiti posses, 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 hard work of others. Thanks. duncan 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 2006

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Wikipediarules2221 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary [3] Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Crockspot 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not hyphenate "did not" on this page, you are using those hyphens incorectly. The official investigation DID claim that the exchange did not take place, but others say it did, but by hyphenating the "did not" you are making it seems as if the official investigation may or may have not said that when they clearly did. The urban legend and exchange have already been covered in the article and this hyphenation, while being used incorrectly, is also unecessary. Thank You. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

About: United States Senate election, 2006: If you want to include the line about Talent's supporters thinking he won't win, it might help if you credited the comment to Paul Gibbs of the Missouri Cattleman's Association and linked a reliable source which would be http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060817-114632-9545r_page2.htm. --Bobblehead 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • 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. VoiceOfReason 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Voice-of-All 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Born in East L.A. (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. // Tawkerbot4 06:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Mister Rogers, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Iluvitar 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Theodore Kaczynski, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Iluvitar 03:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, adding {{sprotected}} or {{protected}} to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article such as the notice you placed on D. C. Stephenson. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin or request it. Thanks! --1568 23:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor doesn't add such tags to three or more articles in attempt to block anonymous edits. He adds them to fool rival anonymous editors. —12.72.71.203 23:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Theodore Kaczynski, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pleas leave the "claims" out of it. Saying that she "claims" she found the photos makes it sound like she fabricated it. That would be a leap. Mapetite526 21:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

About: Jeff Gannon 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.--Tbeatty 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the 3RR admin noticeboard. Let me know if you get blocked and I will support an unblock for 3RR. Thanks! --Tbeatty 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you have repeatedly done to User talk:75.13.99.82, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —12.72.69.26 03:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you've been blocked for 3RR violations, and filed 3RR complaints yourself, I simply warn that you are on the verge of violating it yourself in the article on Timothy McVeigh. —12.72.69.26 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Timothy McVeigh. 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. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing typos into the commentes of others is vandalism. —12.72.69.26 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:12.72.69.26, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Infowars.com, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging by past comments it's probably a moot point, but your edits to Category:American anti Iraq war activists not only violate NPOV but they are self-contradicting and full of grammatical errors. You also seem to be adding and removing subjects from this category with no rhyme or reason to your method. How can Country Joe McDonald be an anti Iraq war activist, yet Harry Belafonte and Michael Moore not be anti Iraq war activists? Furthermore, you keep inserting this phrase into the article: So while they are against the war in Iraq they are not anti-war per say. This is a highly unencyclopedic phrase nor does it hold any relevance in the article. "Per say" doesn't mean anything. You must mean "per se", but you obviously don't know the correct usage of this phrase or else you wouldn't be using it to illustrate a point in an encyclopedia. --buck 13:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Rinaldi

Thanks for an especially good edit to John Rinaldi. Keep up the good work and Welcome!

Hello, 132.241.246.111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  EFG 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting Dems

You seem to be doing some great work on Fighting Dems. However, I saw your last few edits[4] and noticed you are not presenting sources. If the sources are already under the External links section, then I apologize for wasting your time, otherwise, please provide sources for the content you are adding. Thanks, EFG 21:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current user...

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 edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 132.241.246.111). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. - BalthCat 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I left the welcome as a welcome, not to chase you off. If we disagree about what is appropriate for the article, then we can discuss it on the talk page (ie: the discussion tab) at the top. In case you got some sort of "this is my turf" vibe from me, it's an illusion, I'm not a prolific editor. I mostly revert vandalism and try to keep a hold on some of the chaos you see from time to time. If you'd added the list in again, I would have taken the discussion to the talk page. I also just felt that the list was a overly morbid for so early in the story. (And I won't be accused of being overly sensitive:] ) Have a good night. - BalthCat 06:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ainu people

Hi. Yes, I reverted you because scare quotes are POV. The Ainu are Japanese by nationality, but are not ethnic Japanese, which is what that article is about, the Japanese ethnic group. —Khoikhoi 05:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your logic. Yes, I am aware of that, however the Ainu are never refered to as "ethnic Japanese". I doubt most Ainu even prefer to be labeled as such. They prefer the term Utari. Please provide reliable sources that says Ainu are refered to as ethnic Japanese, thanks. —Khoikhoi 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Jack Chick, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rsm99833 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Jack Chick. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. Rsm99833 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


== some people ==

don't know what vandalism looks like.

[edit] Michael P. Fay Vandalism

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, such as those you made to Michael P. Fay, 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 hard work of others. Thanks. Uucp 01:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism edits to David Koresh

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. Izaakb 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '61 or '63? Only her hairdresser knows. NOT!

Use the article talk page if you truly believe there is anything left to say about this. Repeatedly putting known falsehoods into an article is vandalism. Lonewolf BC 00:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So why did she have a licence that says otherwise?
132.241.246.111 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Use the article talk-page. I will move this to there momentarily.
Lonewolf BC 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPUS

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is an encyclopedia. Not a repository for your jokes or snide comments.

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, such as those you made to Al Lewis, 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. — coelacan talk — 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damaged article on St. John the Apostle

Please do not remove properly sourced material from the Wikipedia without previous discussion and consensus. Thank you, Haiduc 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LAST WARNING!

This is your LAST WARNING! Your userpage is now all that you are allowed to edit. IF YOU REMOVE COMMENTS FROM IT, THEN YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FROM EVEN THAT. (The page will be protected or semi-protected.) —75.18.113.152 02:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stalkers

So it's ok to stalk people on Wikipedia with a rotating server and multiple accounts and then list a well edited list of all the things said knowing full well the remarks were cherry picked and then expect the victim to part take in a kangaroo court event? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.246.111 (talk • contribs) at 04:38 on 3 December 2006

  1. You have been told for years, here and on dKosopedia, to sign your entries.
  2. The fact that my ISP assigns a different IP number every time doesn't in any way put me in violation of Wikipedia's rules — I don't use the different IP numbers to evade blocks, violate the 3RR, or any such.
  3. You were engaged in evasion of a block, regardless of the quality your edits.
  4. I linked to the full list of your edits, as well as noting some especially problematic edits.
  5. The two points of listing the overtly problematic edits were
    A. That they had the same flavor as the problematic edits that you'd made as Grazon — I was using shared pathology as an indicator of shared identity.
    B. To show that you hadn't reformed — if you had, then I'd not have found a single overtly problematic edit in such a short time. As it was, I found at least a dozen.
  6. There was no hopping in the “court”. You were originally blocked for using sockpuppets to evade blocks. The only real question before the “court” this time was whether 132.241.246.111 was you.
—12.72.72.213 07:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nader warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Asexuality, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Matthew 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nader (copied from User talk:Imjustmatthew)

Ok I won't post Nader again without a link.

But is j. edger hoover ok? 132.241.246.111 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, adding someone to the list of Asexual people in the article Asexuality is not acceptable without a proper source and citation. Introducing names without justification is libelous. --Matthew 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there was justification for adding Nader but since he's alive I decided it would be best for wikipedia not to add him.

Hoover on the other hand was never married, never dated, and almost became a minister.

So if any historic figure could be called Asexual without calling themselves this it's Hoover.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/j-edgar-hoover/

132.241.246.111 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotten.com is not a very credible source. Take a look at WP:VERIFY for more information on the burden of proof and credible sources. As far as Nadar is concerned, take a look at WP:BLP which talks about the extraordinary importance of verifiability in the biographies of living persons. --22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grazon

User:Grazon has been banned indefinitely. -Will Beback · † · 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlamDiego

aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.72.70.212

BTW he's got a range of IP addresses

132.241.246.111 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Expecting the word “sockpuppet” to work magic for you? I'm not engaged in block evasion; I'm not trying to surreptitiously violate the 3RR; I'm not stuffing a ballot box. —12.72.70.212 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
So far your IP has been:
  • 12.72.70.203
  • 12.72.72.213
  • 12.72.70.212
  • 12.72.72.157
  • 12.72.69.94
  • 12.72.69.83
No you're nothing like a sockpuppeteer. 132.241.246.111 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It is normal with a dial-up account to be assigned a different IP number with every log-in. You are not in trouble for having edited from multiple IP numbers, not even for editing from multiple logged-in accounts. The problem with your use of multiple IP numbers and mulitple accounts is in for what purpose you use them — for block evasion and (earlier) to surreptitiously violate the 3RR. (You are also, of course, in trouble for a history of tendentious edits.) —12.72.70.212 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and I'm sure it's also normal to follow people onto their blog's and make remarks about their mother. 132.241.246.111 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
'Twasn't I. (You've been quite ugly to quite a few people. The list of suspects, then, is large.) Anyway, you've been blocked strictly for what you have done, not because of accusations made about your parents. —SlamDiego 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Well looks like the sockpuppeteer has been revealed 132.241.246.111 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LAST WARNING

This is your LAST WARNING! Your userpage is now all that you are allowed to edit. If again you vandalize the comments of others hereupon as you did to mine, then you will be blocked from editing even that. —SlamDiego 05:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/3/2/User_talk%7E132.241.246.111.html"