User talk:130.156.30.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 130.156.30.59, is registered to New Jersey Higher Education Network NJEDGE and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses 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 be 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; if so, 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 from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Contents

[edit] Violation of Three-Revert Rule

User:130.156.30.59 made four separate reverts on Trisha Meili today.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102929576

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102929676

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102930024

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102930245

User:130.156.30.59 is also known as the Bloomfield College sockpuppets User:130.156.31.143, User:130.156.29.61, User:130.156.30.57 and User:130.156.29.134. 70.23.199.239 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Violation of WP:Stalking

This editor is guilty of two counts of WP:Stalking, against both me and User:Yakuman.

[edit] Staccusations

That's funny, Nicholas Stix saying someone else is a stalker. 130.156.29.61 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (<- This is what four consecutive tildes gets you, Nick. Learn how to use them.)


[edit] May 2007

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Pete Incaviglia page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. SalaSkan 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the additions. Incaviglia gained weight later in his career, which affected his performance. Also, inserting the last year of his career is not nonesense. 130.156.30.59 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that an author leaving comments here does not feel that he or she is obligated to keep discussion on his or her own talk page, I am removing prior comments. 130.156.30.182 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to List of basic self topics

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page List of basic self topics do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'groups\.yahoo\.com' (link(s): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Intrinsicatians) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! SquelchBot (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

[edit] Rubin Carter

Websites that make factual and legally inacurate statements are not reliable sources. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual and legally 'inacurate' statements. You ask in one of your edit summary what court ruled that Carter and Artis were wrongfully convicted. Where does this website state that a court ruled that? 130.156.30.59 (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That's my point, no court has ever handed down such a ruling - the site you have linked to makes this claim, a claim that is legally inaccurate. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It does not claim that a court ruled that. 130.156.30.59 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that, the site makes the claim, a legally inaccurate claim, a grossly misleading and completely untrue claim.650 Norton (1951) (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I see we are going to go around in circles. The site says that he was wrongfully convicted. It does NOT say that this was the COURTS ruling. It's an interpretation based on the fact that Carter was released and has remained free for twenty years. 130.156.30.59 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a completely inaccurate interpretation, Carter was not released because he was wrongfully convicted, and he's remained free because the state choose not to retry him. Now, how could they have retried him for a 3rd time if he'd been wrongfully convicted? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"It's a completely inaccurate interpretation" Complete Nonesense. It's within reason to conclude that a man released from prison and never for returned for that crime was wrongfully convicted. "he's remained free because the state choose not to retry him". No kidding! I believe that's covered in the article. "Now, how could they have retried him for a 3rd time if he'd been wrongfully convicted?" Missing the point again. Is this deliberate? Again, the article doesn't state that the indictment was ever dismissed. 130.156.30.59 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You are pretending to be an idiot which you certainly are not! Encyclopeadias do not include "what's within reason", they contain documented verifiable FACT and you my friend know it. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying that the encyclopedia should include a statement about Carter being wrongfully convicted. 130.156.30.59 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No just let Zak "Dillion's" website do it for you eh? LOL 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So now Zak Dillion created a website solely to echo my alleged views? 130.156.30.59 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Alleged views" - no, stop it I'm pissing myself! Mind you it's the best laugh I've had all day! Cheers, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
A wikipedian who comes here for the humor? Now I've seen everything 130.156.30.59 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No not yet, I hope you get to see as much as I have, but you have to have a bit of a giggle eh? No good ranting and raving all the time is there? In retrospect, I suppose the site is quite informative and most people by and large, have the sense to make up their own minds. Cheers 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)