User talk:193.203.82.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Cheryl Cole. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 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. Xdamrtalk 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] April 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Stonehenge. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 15:57, 17 April 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.

An encyclopedia isn't the place to carry out a grudge against this company; contact 'one' direct or contact your MP if you have a grievance. I removed your section on 'severe delays' as you haven't given enough thought to it. You need to explain or link to established criteria and be clear about what trains and services were affected; perhaps by using their headcode. To be honest though, if people are interested in this kind of minutae they will find it from the DfT or PassengerFocus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.31.181.58 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cydonia Mensae

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- Ronz  17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. -- Ronz  14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent editing at Cydonia Mensae

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cydonia Mensae. 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. I recognize that this was several days ago, but this dispute still seems to be unresolved. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than making any further reversions to the article. Thanks.--Chaser - T 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Onorem♠Dil 10:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More edit warring at Cydonia Mensae

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cydonia Mensae

Hi there. Would you please explain what your problem is with the text at Cydonia Mensae? The version that you keep removing text from or actually vandalising (thanks for the personal attacks by the way; a sure sign that one is doing the right thing) has been carefully edited by a number of editors (myself included) to best reflect the state of knowledge concerning this region on Mars. The text you seem set on removing is, to my POV, a neutral description of the state of play. If you wish to disagree with this, please take it up on the article's talk page. That's the way we're supposed to do business here. Continuing to disrupt the article is liable to lead to you being banned (as other editors have reminded you already). Please stop and explain why you think the text does not adequately describe the subject of the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I see you're back at Cydonia Mensae. Can you please explain what your problem is with the text? Otherwise, we'll be back where we were last time (and we know how that ended). For starters, you suggest that NASA has not analysed this location, despite there being several cited web articles that focus specifically on this region. True, the information they present is more press release than detailed analysis, but what sort of analysis do you have in mind that could definitively demonstrate that a crumbly mountain is precisely that, a crumbly mountain? More generally, changing the article to say that NASA haven't performed any research on the Face rather overlooks the point that they revisited it with the Mars Global Surveyor. Saying "no research" would only make sense if there were only one set of photographs. Anyway, I thought I'd politely give you a heads-up before I revert the article to a more neutral and accurate state. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, silence again eh? Please explain why you feel the need to make this article less accurate. Obviously, my POV is that you're simply vandalising it to support a minority pseudoscientific viewpoint, but it would help your case if you explained why your changes are necessary. In the meantime, I'll continue to revert to the consensus version until you respond to these messages. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you from editing. Your removal of references from this article is unacceptable; unless you cease removing them or at least explain your position instead of repeatedly reverting, you will find yourself blocked for longer and longer periods of time. —Cryptic 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

24 hours for a 3RR violation. Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Buses route C3

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page London Buses route C3 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, then 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. Thank you. [1] --Ronz 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Your recent edit to NASA (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) 09:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 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 Cydonia Mensae, 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. --Plumbago (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, please don't vandalise pages to make a point. By all means take this up on the article's talkpage. However, I'm afraid that I don't recognise your characterisation of my actions at the article. Almost all of the added material that I've removed is pseudoscience or nonsense about the supposed "Face" on Mars. As it happens, most recently I adapted text added on this point, and even added further pseudoscientific sources to reference this viewpoint. Note that the article 'does not avoid all mention of such pseudoscience (in fact, there's a fair chunk there), but instead puts it within the context of the scientific community's view of the mesa on Mars (which is that it's just a naturally formed mesa - just like the photographs show). --Plumbago (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)