User talk:192.250.34.161

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 192.250.34.161, is registered to State Street Bank, 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.


This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.
Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.
Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | page moves | block log | block list]

[edit] June 2007

Your recent edit to Engagement (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. // MartinBot 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sago Mine disaster

I removed your merge tag on Sago Mine disaster. You didn't explain why there should be a merge on the talk page. Also, the Randal McCloy page you suggested be merged into Sago is huge. There is no room to put most of the information there into Sago. I also saw that this IP address has numerous warnings for vandalism, etc., so I am not taking you seriously. If I am wrong or you feel you have a good reason for merging, please discuss it on the Sago talk page. Thank you. Fanra 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it needs to be explained to you why a person who has no claims to encyclopedic notability outside of surviving one notable event does not need an article separate from that event is disappointing enough. The Randal McCloy article may be large; the amount of encyclopedically notable information in it is not. But when I turned on the computer this morning, I was randomly assigned an IP address, and people who had that IP address before me had done stupid things with it, and you think that is all the reason you need to not take me seriously? Do you realize just how foolish that sounds? Imagine if the police were to take that attitude. "Well, we got a call from a payphone saying that there was a bank robbery and that a bystander who was shot during the getaway needs our help badly. But I see in the logs that we've had prank calls coming from that payphone before, so we're not going to take any calls from that phone seriously." As you suggested, I have posted an explanation of the merge proposal on the Sago talk page. But I urge you to get rid of your naive prejudice against IP users and start judging ideas on their own merits; unlike your current practice, that will reflect well upon you. -- 192.250.34.161 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Melrose, Massachusetts, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mendors 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] August 2007

[edit] Twinkie defense edits

Greetings. Your deletions from the Twinkie defense articles have been reversed again. Please use the article's talk pages to discuss material you feel doesn't apply to the article. Benjiboi 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regards. Your reinsertion of non-Twinkie defense material into the Twinkie defense article has been reversed again. Please see my lengthy explanation on the talk page on why your material is misplaced and furthers misunderstanding rather than improving the article. -- 192.250.34.161 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input on this matter. You have inspired me to dig up references and sources that I am glad to have read. And without your efforts the article would have limped along blissfully unfabulous. The original transcripts and documents from the trial don't yet seem to be archived online (except an archive of artists drawings) but I'm sure someone will add them as they appear. Benjiboi 10:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 360otc

Hi. I deleted a few references to a drug called "360otc" that was posted about in the articles for several headache medications. The additions sounded somewhat spam-like -- based on your history at Wikipedia I'd definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, but I really don't think the mention of the new headache drug belongs in each of the separate headache drug articles at this point. Thanks; Greg

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please refrain from making further unnecessary edits to the pages for Advil, Excedrin, and Tylenol. There is no need to promote an alternate headache drug in these articles. Thanks for your cooperation.

This is your last warning.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please consider making constructive contributions rather than just advertising some OTC pain reliever. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Twinkie defense. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. AngelOfSadness talk 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Reverts

Please be careful when reverting vandalism not to erase legitimate edits or to re-add links banned from Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. Chicago kid 1911 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Test 192.250.34.161 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your ongoing incivility

Hello, Anonymous IP Editor. I have been looking through your contributions to various articles, and would like to point out your real incivility in edit summaries. Summaries such as "Any argument that tries to explain "why the Twinkie defense worked" just betrays ignorance." or "material is UNSOURCED WITH FAKE CITATIONS, IRRELEVANT, or BOTH. Would work with honest editor on this issue but see no signs that Benjiboi is one." are not only uncollegial and incivil, but bad tactics in that they will get you blocked if you continue. I would further remind you, in response to this edit summary, to assume good faith about your fellow editors.

I am not going to explain all of Wikipedia's policies to you, or even encourage you to register, as all evidence points to you being an experienced editor editing anonymously, for whatever the reason. I will simply say that I am now watching a number of pages that you edit and hope I do not see such incivility again. Jeffpw 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Twinkie defense. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WjBscribe 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a very sorry state that Wikipedia has come to? Where it is considered more acceptable to be an editor who inserts false claims about what a witness testified to on the stand and inserts false citations to cover up the fact that the material was made up by the editor, than to be an editor who actually tries to keep false material out of Wikipedia but isn't polite enough to those adding falsehoods?

Oh, but I forget, you ask me to "assume good faith". Very well. Please explain to me the good-faith explanation for inserting text that says "Witness A testified that B and attributed that to C" when you know that your citations make no mention whatsoever of C. Obviously if Benjiboi had any actual RS that George Solomon had really given that testimony -- even if it was a source Benjiboi thought was an RS that wasn't -- he would have provided that source in the citation. He didn't. Ergo, he knew that he was inserting an invented claim and giving false citations that did not support that invented claim.

You both found the time to chastise me for "incivility"; do you suppose anyone will ever get around to notifying Benjiboi (civilly, of course) that one cannot simply invent testimony one wishes a trial witness had given and place in an article the false claim that they did give it? And that merely citing the fact that a particular witness testified at a trial does not make it acceptable to invent your own version of what they testified to? -- 192.250.34.161 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone to be civil, not to escalate the accusations further, & to focus on the content issues instead of on each other. I agree that there are problems with the Twinkie defense article, but it is possible to point out problems with that without accusing one another of intentionally acting in bad faith, "lying", "inventing", etc., & also without calling people names behind their back in other areas of Wikipedia. Meantime, 192.250.34.161, I've replied on my talk page to your post to me there. --Yksin 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

I have no intent of providing further warnings. Your postings have been unnecessarily agressive. I have reverted this edit in that it seems mainly focused on disparaging another editor. Feel free to repost it in a different form - you restrict yourself to commenting on content and not contributors. The accusations of bad faith and hostily stop or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a time. WjBscribe 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Niagara Falls. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Dreadstar † 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkie defense RfC initiated

Please see Talk:Twinkie defense#Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute. This article RfC is was initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process. Thanks. --Yksin 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your statement

I would encourage you to rethink your accusations towards Benjiboi in your statement. It is more likely that Benjiboi's mistakes have been the result of, well, mistakes by Benjiboi. I can tell you that I have been on wikipedia for almost two years and I have never seen an editor push their agenda in an article and then yield to compromise and mediation. It is likely that Benjiboi made the same mistake as whoever created the "Twinkie Defense" legend, and added the phrase for clarity, without realizing he was changing the definition.

I encourage you to go back and read the earlier discussion Talk:Twinkie defense#Relevance of Milk's homosexuality. If you could lend me a minute of your time, I would like to give you my interpretation of what has happened here with Benjiboi editing the article. When I read the posts made by you and Benjiboi—together and then separately—I saw that the two of you are talking about two different issues—each one of you guys is talking about a different thing, it's almost like it's two different conversations. You are discussing the source of the Twinkie defense, while Benjiboi is discussing the victim's homosexuality. You two never officially disagreed with each other's assertions—Benjiboi never defended or apologized over his edits. There really isn't a dispute, there are just two conversations going on here—neither of which has really been discussed. They are:

  1. Benjiboi wants to know why you oppose mentioning the victim's homosexuality. Insofar as I can tell, you never respond.
  2. You want to know why Benjiboi added incorrect information and gave incorrect citations. He never says why he did or defends his actions, he just questions you about the above topic.

Do you see? We just need to clear up these two misunderstandings. Please, think about this, and come back to me with an answer when you have thoroughly considered it. I really want us to find a happy solution for everyone. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that 192 doesn't oppose mention of the victim's homosexuality. What s/he said was, "Mwelch, I believe Milk's homosexuality is relevant to this article, up to a point...." (Mwelch was an editor who had earlier questioned if mention of Milk's gayness was at all relevant, but modified his/her view somewhat as the conversation proceeded). 192 does have a different opinion than Benjiboi of the extent to which Milk's gayness is relevant, but never said it was irrelevant or should not be mentioned at all. Otherwise, I think you may be right that to a great extent they were having two different conversations, & were both frustrated at each other's inability to hear the other's concerns, which both read as a sign of bad faith on the other's part. --Yksin 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Yksin. I did indeed take it as a sign of bad faith that instead of answering the concerns that I was voicing, Benjiboi kept asking me to defend positions that I had never held and never said, such as "No one has disputed that Twinkie defense started anywhere but with the people v. White case, if you think that is true" and "If you think that Twinkie defense had nothing to do with Dan White" and "you vehemently claimed that Milk's being gay had/has no place in this article and had nothing to do with Twinkie defense". Two of those claims, as Yksin has pointed out, were already shown false before they were made, and of the remaining two, well, I'd like someone to point out to me any portion of what I've said that a reasonable person acting in good faith could interpret as "the Twinkie defense started somewhere other than People vs. White" or "the Twinkie defense had nothing to do with Dan White". -- 192.250.34.161 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Todd, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. \/\/AYCOOL27talk 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] Moscone-Milk assassinations

Yo, 192, I've belatedly replied to you on my talk page. --Yksin 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkie defense

See reply on my talk page, & the article & its talk page. Ready to proceed. Good luck! --Yksin 02:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -- 192.250.34.161 12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Bragg and original research

Hello, 192.250.34.161, this is one of the other users of 192.250.34.161 . If you're the person who made this edit, then you're who I'm writing to. Anyways, the problem with this edit is that using "direct conversation with the subject" as a reference is forbidden on Wikipedia; it's something called "original research". If you cite a claim to a newspaper article, then anyone who might doubt your claim can check the article and see if it really says what you say it says. But no one can check a direct conversation you had with somebody, so you can't use it as a source. I'd advise looking around to see if Bragg shared the same information about his name in an interview somewhere, which is pretty likely. -- 192.250.34.161 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems somewhat silly, since a lot of information that is shared in the world does not make it into print or other media. For example, if in conversation with Billy he tells me that his father was a haberdasher, but that is not written anywhere, does that then mean it is invalid and should not be included in this biography page about him? It is not encyclopedic content, it is simply information on the subject that is not widely known.
And who are you if you are using 192.250.34.161 ?
Stephen Walker
Yes, that's exactly right; if Billy tells you that his father was a haberdasher, but that fact never makes it into print in a reliable source, it can't be used in Wikipedia. Private biographers can do that sort of thing, putting "Bragg's father, a haberdasher" into the text and then adding a footnote "personal conversation with subject" to explain how they know that. But Wikipedians can't do that sort of thing, as it's original research. As for who I am -- well, if you've ever looked at "your" list of contributions, surely you've noticed that not all of them are yours? -- 192.250.34.161 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
will you guys start getting user accounts and using them--you can still call yourself almost anything you please. WP is not a guessing game. 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what business it is of yours. I have good reasons for not getting a user account, despite it sometimes causing me inconvenience. "WP is not a guessing game" -- no, it isn't, but no one is making you guess at information that you need to know. -- 192.250.34.161 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Atheism worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  – ornis⚙ 15:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] Mea Culpa to an Astute Banker

I am grateful to you for your criticism ("Altering direct quotations") which you placed at the bottom of my talk page on October 10, 2007. I am well aware of the academic and Wikipedia rule against altering direct quotations, and it is only too clear that I am at fault. I must have rashly assumed that the spelling "Jimcrow" was not in the original text, but the slip of key or mind of a Wikipedia editor, but I had no right to assume that, and I apologize most sincerely to you and to the entire Wikipedia community. "Every time I ASSUME, I make an ASS out of U and ME." Writtenright 12:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

[edit] Regarding edits to 2006 Duke University lacrosse case

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 192.250.34.161! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule invisionfree\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

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 Kristy McNichol, 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. E_dog95 Hi 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Aldershot, Ontario, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Triwbe (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Rabba, you will be blocked from editing. Poeloq (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] January 2008

Your recent edit to Salem, Tamil Nadu (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses/phone numbers or Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr or related links to a non-talk page. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Salem, Tamil Nadu (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses/phone numbers or Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr or related links to a non-talk page. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to PFA, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. robwingfield «T•C» 12:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alison Arngrim, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Arlen Specter 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. Party!Talk to me! 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Arlen Specter constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Your recent edit to Arlen Specter (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Arlen Specter. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Snowolf How can I help? 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Arlen Specter. Snowolf How can I help? 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edit to Joe Buck (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Joe Buck. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. · AndonicO Hail! 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Arlen Specter. · AndonicO Hail! 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. When the block expires you are free to continue editing if you intend to make useful contributions. However, if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, this IP address will be subject to a longer block.

NawlinWiki (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Arlen Specter, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Neverquick (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

The recent edit you made to Arlen Specter constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Arlen Specter, you will be blocked from editing. Kubigula (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to York Central Ball Hockey League, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: York Central Ball Hockey League was changed by 192.250.34.161 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-03-27T20:46:36+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jacoby Ellsbury, you will be blocked from editing. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Regarding your recent edit to Mutual fund, I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. I have reverted your change. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Bill Capece 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. — iridescent 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)