User talk:195.8.190.54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 195.8.190.54, is registered to Your Communications Ltd and may be shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

However, you might still be unable to edit Wikipedia if the IP you are using is blocked due to a MediaWiki "feature". In such a case you could request to be unblocked.

In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact Your Communications Ltd to report network abuse.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Kewp 06:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Ultraviolet (film). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. MarkS (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for experimenting with the page Thumb on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Raven4x4x 11:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Cut to the chase. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Runcorn 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Cut to the chase, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Runcorn 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you blank or remove material from a page, as you did to Cut to the chase, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Runcorn 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Cut to the chase

User:195.8.190.54 left the following unsigned message on my talk page:

My apologies if this is not the correct method of addressing the problem, but I am otherwise unaware of how you may be contacted. On the page "Cut to the Chase", I have updated the article using known, checkable facts, in an attempt at accuracy. Recent criticisms aimed at Wikipedia syggest that it cannot be seen to be accurate anymore if anyone can affect the entries; ergo, I understand the need for 'policing' alterations to entries. However, there has been a noticable trend in certain Monitors apparently unwilling to allow, seemingly peevishly, "Their" pages. or "their" pet subject to be upgraded or updated. The current problem, CUT TO THE CHASE, might appear to be a case in point. In short, the statement that this term is taken from the era of silent movies is quite simply wrong; at best it is a mild joke, at worst it is wildly innacurate; this is meant to be an accurate encyclopedia. My statement that the origin of the word comes from an older source is true, a verifiable historical fact. However, this has been repeatedly dimissed and ignored as it simply doesn't seem to suit somebody who clings childishly to his own interpretation. Now, I have received a threat of 'final warning' for 'vandalism' when I am trying to add a correction to a mistake. This smacks of a 'Fanboy' mentality better suited to TV Show conventions where fans can argue their point of veiw ad infinitum; The difference here is that You are clinging to a misinformation and propogating said mistake by wiping off a factual account to reiterate a statement nothing more grounded than an old wives tale. This is tantamouint to bullying of the worst kind, and a revelation of perhaps a lower standard of information than might be expected. Wikipedia is being degraded by such behaviour, and I for one must reconsidder its accuracy from this point: Student entries proffered for my attention containing Wikipedia citations may need to be rejected from this time forth for this very reason Please consider your misuse of power.
Prof. Richard Cohen, Bsc. Bed.(Hons)

The solution is simple. Prof. Cohen has "updated the article using known, checkable facts" and that what he says is "a verifiable historical fact". All he has to do is provide references showing that his explanation of the origin of the phrase is correct, as other editors of the page have done to confirm their explanation; see WP:V and WP:RS. It would also be helpful to link his university page, which as a professor he no doubt has; I have been unable to locate it. Not only has he provided no references, he has tried to delete those given by others. As a professor, he will be well aware that it is poor practice to dismiss well-referenced claims without giving his own references. How would he mark a student entry that disagreed with something he had said, dismissing it as "wildly innacurate (sic)" and "an old wives tale", and asserted that the student was "using known, checkable facts", but failed to include any references? I stress that this is not my pet subject, merely one that has come to my attention. I also draw the user's attention to WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Finally, I agree with him that at university level, students should not just cite Wikipedia as a source; he should be rejecting such essays already. - Runcorn 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More vandalism recorded

Repeated vandalism to List_of_alloys on this IP address. Reverted twice so far. --Not2advanced 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] April 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Microsoft Dynamics SL. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Leafyplant 12:11, 11 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.


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Microsoft Dynamics SL, you will be blocked from editing. Leafyplant 12:16, 11 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.

[edit] September 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Liverpool. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Oxymoron, you will be blocked from editing. Brianga (talk) 11:17, 20 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.

[edit] Additions of http://.n95-8gb.com

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Thaksin Shinawatra 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. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)