User talk:156.34.213.177

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 156.34.213.177, is registered to Aliant high speed users, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, 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 may be 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; if so, 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. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

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.
IT 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] Sorry about that dude

Dream Theater rocks : ) Wisdom89 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Stop re-formating templates. Your version is no different than mine other than the fact that it is a different color. Also, your version is not the standard musical artist template either. The difference between your template version and mine is a personal preference. Undeath (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates are not black. Only 11 year "metal stereotypes" make them that colour. Look at other Rock templates to see which colours are standard use. Then do Wikipedia a favour and go around and change all the templates that aren't the right colour so that they all look the same. Even better.... change them into the newer navbox format that uses the 'field 1', 'field 2' etc structure. Leave the black backgrounds for the amateur fansites and schoolboy book reports. This is an encyclopedia. 156.34.213.177 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You obviously do not know the standard format because you are only changing colors around. There is a wikiproject that is changing the format of templates, and you are not changing them to the right format. You are chaning them just to change them. Undeath (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If you continue to change only the color, I will change them back. They are un-constructive edits. Undeath (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An encycplopedia is all about consistency. Why should 99% of Rock music navboxes be the same colour and the ones you like match your own unencyclopedic POV? If you keep reverting you will be reported for 3RR. If you revert using the rollback function... which is for vandalism only... you will be reported for misuse and the rollback function will be taken away from you. It's just that simple. You colour scheme matches your username... "heavy metal stereotype" Think encyclopedia... not schoolboy book report. 156.34.213.177 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1.) It is not a "stereotype". 2.) Your comments of "schoolboy book report" are childish and should stop immediately. 3.) I used the rollback tool because I had warned you about changing the templates back. IMO, your constant reverts constituted vandalism. If you are going to change a template, you should change it to the standard template, or not change it at all. Undeath (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the standard is NOT black for any type of artist. For a group/band it is blue according to Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Background. However, you are both going at this the wrong way. Undead warrior, you should have actually checked the guidelines and policies concerning these kinds of templates before immediately reverting the edits as vandalism, and 156.34.213.177, you should have assumed good faith and linked to or quoted the specific guideline instead of quickly insulting and making personal attacks toward the other editor. Hopefully this can be resolved now. Also, to the ip, I suggest you start using an account again as it has a countless number of benefits and no cons to using one. Timmeh! 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling Stones revert

Hey-

I'm new to all this diff'ing & History stuff, but it appears that you reverted my "Rhythm & Blues" edit back to "ryhthm and blues", for WP:ATT, on the Rolling Stones page?

If so, why not add a fact tag, to give me a chance to find a cite, rather than just removing my edit? That's kinda rude...

ACushen (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Vampires (song) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Your contribution to has been determined to contain incorrect information. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information about this. Thank you. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I thought you were inserting false information. Your edit has been reinstated. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that vandal tools can be used to revert edits that are Legitimate also. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe they should... just a difference of opinion I guess. Back when I was still an "account" I was a VandalProof user as well as popups and Lupins tools etc. I was very diligent that I did not use any vandal tool to revert an edit that caused a link error or went against known consensus or anything else that wasn't clear vandalism. For those rv's a correction with a proper edit summary was more appropriate. I have zero tolerance for vandals and trolls. But I can AGF a spelling mistake and not use something like popups to rv... because I think that's ill use of the tools. It makes not difference to me now. After I rolled over 20000 edits I abandoned my user account for the purity of anonymous editing. Which means that now... I have no tool :D don't tell Wiki alf that I said that... he'll never let me forget it Have a nice day! 156.34.213.177 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome

Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. I'm happy that you've been contributing. However, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, there are more pros here! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page like mine! So, unless you can think of a con, sign up for an account right now! Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)