User talk:68.251.158.126

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please explain your edits of Alkyl nitrites on Talk:Alkyl nitrites. As it stands, they stand unreferenced and unexplained. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Please, would you explain your edits of Alkyhl nitrites

In the interest of a neutral and accurate Wikipedia, would you explain your own edits of Alkyl nitrites on Talk:Alkyl nitrites. As it is, yours stand unreferenced and unexplained.

[edit] three revert rule

hi-

as per the three revert rule, no editor should revert an article in part or whole more than three times in 24 hours, or your account may be blocked. you are approaching this limit. thank you. --Heah talk 22:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's odd, but every time I edit the page, within minutes someone reverts it back. I suspect it's the same person each time. Have you informed them of the the three revert rule as well? They are clearly in violation.

68.251.158.126 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

hmm, no, it was three people. perhaps you should have checked the history. --Heah talk 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on reports in the media this week, and from comments made by others who have experienced what I went through, it's apparently not uncommon in Wikipedia for a single person to create several different personalities, or ID's, and to then use them themselves, or in concert with others, to create the appearance of unrelated people making edits, challenging posters, harrassing and threatening others, and worse. So, your statment that "..hmm, no, it was three people.", rings hollow with some of us. 209.248.254.66 04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You must...

...cite sources! It's as simple as that - you need to be able to show where you're getting the information from, especially when you're making such wide-ranging changes to an article. You have to be able to cite sources, or the changes get reversed! Dan100 (Talk) 23:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But, you too must cite sources. And you have the responsibility to cite credible sources. You also have the responsibiliy to know what you're talking about when you edit on a subject. People who edit subjects must have a knowlege of those subjects. 68.251.158.126 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have to. As the person altering the article, the onus is on you. Dan100 (Talk) 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Get ready. It's going to be difficult for you to argue with some of these people. There seem to be a couple of guys who don't like Poppers, and who are experienced Wikipedia guys. They have this page on their watch list, and they'll try to thwart your efforts to contribute any information on Poppers that they don't like, at every turn. 209.248.254.66 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Just dig around in Wikipedia and with luck you might be able to find a lot about someone who's vandalizing a page. You can also find the history of anyone who has been mucking about in Wikipedia. I just dug up some interesting background on one of the muckers on the Poppers page. :=) 209.248.254.66 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How they do it. Revealing how vandals prevent accurate information on Poppers, that they disagree with, from being posted here!

I just figured out what's going on -- what these guys are doing to those of us who want to edit the poppers page by adding more accurate and meaningful information, but which they do not agree with. If you can find the time, I urge you to go into the "history" of the poppers section or page (click on the "history" tab at the top of the page), and then go to the bottom of that page. There you can click on the largest number, and essentially see ALL the history of this page -- from the day it was created!

I just spent time looking at it, and a clear pattern emerges. To be kind, there are some pranksters among us. More realistically, and at worse, they are vandals. Some of them appear to be working in concert with each other to make arbritary changes to the edits of people they don't agree with. They literally -- and very quickly -- 'revert' the versions back and forth among their own versions, all the while essentially vandalizing the credible information that more knowledgeable people have posted. Then, when the unsuspecting editors realize something's going on, that their edits are being deleted almost within minutes of their having posted them, and when they try to figure out how best to react and deal with the problem, as they begin the inevitable complaining and asking of questions, they are harrassed and threaten with having their accounts 'blocked'; or they're falsely accused of violating various rules of Wikipedia, upon which they are often then threatened with even more sanctions against them.

It is precisely this kind of unethical, irresponsible and despicable behavior that was exposed in the world wide media earlier this week. Had I not seen the news reports which described exactly this kind of activity being rampant on Wikipedia, I would most likely have never figured out what was going on. 209.248.254.66 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text, 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. re:3RR vio of Alkyl nitrites -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.251.158.126.html"