User talk:203.134.48.170

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Func( t, c ) 22:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in votes and elections
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian! G Clark 22:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Test2

I saw your message at User talk:Func. Looking at the history for this page, the "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia." message was left not by Func, but by WikiDon (talk • contribs), probably in retaliation to this edit. I have restored this talk page to before the bogus message was added. --cesarb 02:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE 1986 Draft

1) I didn't add the Ken Barlow link, User:Dale Arnett did.

If you continue the personal attacks I will ask that you be banned.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

WikiDon 06:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ABUSE

Do not make personal attacks.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

WikiDon 06:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again

I do not appriciate you talking to me like that. WikiDon 06:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. ---

[edit] Be good

  • While WikiDon has skipped steps 1 to 3, and used the wrong templates, he's correct. Stop making personal attacks, it can lead to being blocked. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've advised WikiDon to take a break from editing this page, and I'd advise you to do the same. Regardless of the merits of any edits you've made, your edit summaries are totally unacceptable. Being nice and not making attacks are not optional. Go look at some flowers, or something, ok? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert-rule on 1986 NBA Draft. If you have any questions or comments, post them here- I'll be watching to reply to any concerns you may have about this block. Ral315 14:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wooly-Willy

While we'd love to expand this article, copy-vios aren't allowed on Wikipedia. -- user:zanimum

And a copy-vio is?

Local jargon for "copyright violation". In other words, someone else's copyrighted works, which can't (with a few exceptions, short as short credited excerpts used as illustrations of a point or examples, under the "fair-use" doctrine) be used. For details, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


OK, thanks. I was just trying to improve the article by merging with another, which was more comprehensive.

[edit] August 2006

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. 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. Oldelpaso 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore

Hi. I reverted your good faith edit to Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore. You should probably review WP:Citing sources. While your edits may have been true, explaining them as a reference doesn't satisfy WP:Reliable Sources. 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you frickin' kidding me? The entire article (as well as an overwhelming number of Wikipedia articles) is of a similar standard you claim is not satisfactory. For example, the article states he was a friend of Frederick Louis. What existing verifiable source actually supports this? If this is allowed to be kept, and if what I stated is just as "unverified", then by what valid reason do you remove my claim but retain the "friend" claim? --203.134.48.170 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm not kidding. That was not a citation that you added. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources. You'll notice the tag on the article saying it needed additional references/citations. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, fine, so what I added was not fundamentally a citation, reference, or supporting piece of evidence, as such. I'll re-classify it as a note instead, OK? You know, like a footnote, a proverbial turd of trivial information dubiously apt for inclusion. But my point still stands that in the state it was in, it's just as valid as the "he was a friend of Frederick Louis" claim. So having said that, if I add it back, and you revert it again, are you going to maintain some consistency by removing the unreferenced "friend" sentence? Keep in mind the information I harvested was from Wikipedia articles (which are also governed under the same rules you're enforcing, no?). cheers.--203.134.48.170 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why anon IP?

Hi. My recent message to you notwithstanding, you have been making some very solid contributions to Wikipedia recently. First I want to thank you for the good work. Second, please consider creating an account for yourself. We need good editors like you. If you want help, let me know. Toddst1 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Bonum sane 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. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Use your eyes and see what I did before claiming it was "unconstructive". I'm not going to use the edit summary every time I make a change - it's not always practical, so live with it. Bye. --203.134.48.170 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Your recent edit to 2007 NBA Playoffs (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) 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism.--203.134.48.170 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)