User talk:204.52.215.128

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This host, nat01-usntc-ext.Rutgers.EDU, is registered to Rutgers University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, 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. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. 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 read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School 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.

Thank you for experimenting with the page Sioux on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it 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. 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. Williamborg (Bill) 03:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Located issue

I normally use this computer and this IP, I have an edit history that does not belong to me. I have only done edits on SSBM article and talk beauty. Update: I found out what happened. I didnt lock my computer and my roommate vandalized the Sioux page. This computer will be locked at all times. All edits I have done are always on my user name, expect in the event of a glitch log out. I am sure you have all run into this before. This happened during Talk:Beauty, SSBM article, and just recently today when I put up South cove for AfD. Second Update: I have confirmed that this is a shared IP at Rutgers-Newark. There is work done by other users not including myself and my roommate. Valoem talk 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannibal Lecter

I did not vandalize the Hannibal Lecter article. Count Hannibal Lecter VIII is Lecter's true title, as shown in Hannibal Rising. Also, the mention of sadism to animals was a bit out of place, as it is never even explicitly stated that that was the specific point in his life that he was sadistic to animals. Besides, it is mentioned later in the article. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. It's fine. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten Tomatoes

Oh, sorry. I had asked a friend (not on Wikipedia, but elsewhere) about what Certified Fresh meant, and that is what they told me. I should have researched instead of just taking their word. I am sorry. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 24 warning

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the World Series of Poker page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Doug Bell talk 09:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to 300 (film)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalise Wikipedia once again, as you did to 300 (film), you will be blocked from editing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Wahlberg

Please don't revert an entire month of contributions without discussing it first. If you want to make a single change, add the material back in, as wiping out dozens of editors' contributions at once looks like vandalism. Based on this IP's history, if you do it again, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. --Bfigura (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of The Juggernaut Bitch!!

An editor has nominated The Juggernaut Bitch!!, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch!! and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ssbm

Hi, regarding your comments on my talk page. Yes, WP is not a democracy. However, consensus does not mean a vote, because when we say consensus we mean that we have reached a decision as a group. Now, I saw ashnard's edit summary in his reversion of your edit, and he said that there was a consensus for him not to be added. RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I will not revert my edit due to the consensus. RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not everybody has to agree with the decision for there to be a consensus. Also, whether your counter arguments outweighted theirs is not an issue. As far as I can tell your issues were adressed in the discussion and I would advise you not to revert as it would make a lot people mad and could result in you getting temporarily blocked. RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhh dude, the discussion is over. The result was to remove ken. The discussion is over. RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion may not have been over but the consensus was reached and the outcomes was to keep ken out of the article. Henceforth, I will remove him. RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A. You wait until the consensus is reached before you add it again.

B. A consensus was reached and the result was to keep him out of the article.

RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. --Merovingian (T, C) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your comments at FAC, in response to Laser Brain. Thanks for the help. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)