User talk:207.207.127.254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This host, mask254.ups.edu, is registered to University of Puget Sound (US) 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.

Contents

[edit] April 2007

[edit] C++

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to C++, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to User:Yamla and User talk:Yamla

It seems that Yamla thought your edit here was vandalism. If he was mistaken, you can tell him so without demanding that he resign as an admin. I have already moved your comment from his user page to the bottom of the user talk page, where by convention we add comments. If you care about this edit you made, please discuss it civilly. Also, please do not remove messages from your talk page. These can be archived if they get too long, but removing them seems unhelpful. Thanks, --Guinnog 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: "I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to threaten new users, hoping to be constructive to the Wikipedia community, in such a manner. I was not "vandalizing" the C++ page, and I'm not even sure how this idea came to you. Just because you want to perpetuate this self-image of being this "champion of anti-vandalism" doesn't mean you need to resort to Mcarthiest tactics to boost your ego. Think about your job as an administrator. your job to the community. you are a SERVANT of Wikipedia, and as a benevolent administrator you should seek to be kind and constructive whenever possible, not a power hungry, threatening little man hiding behind a computer screen. As an administrator, you have power, and that power should NEVER be abused to make you feel better about yourself, as you clearly were doing when issuing me a "final warning" when I never had a previous warning, and in fact did not even vandalize the site! My only intention was to make the C++ "Hello World" example more accurate for people interested in the language. As I have been coding in C++ for over 10 years, across embedded systems, from Windows to Linux to Solaris to operating systems themselves, I felt that my contribution to the article was both accurate, and would help users new to C++ by showing them a much more sane introductory program. If you don't feel the same way, feel free to discuss it with me, but don't just bitchslap me with a final warning and a threat. That just reeks of self-indulgence through a power trip, which is a trait I feel is fatal to being a good administrator. Is there a way to vote that an administrator be stripped of his privileges? If so, please explain to me how I may go about doing so. Your actions show that you are clearly not worthy of this position. Sincerely, Peter Norvig."

It appeared to me that your contribution to C++ was deliberate vandalism. Here's why. Your change converted a program that was correct according to the C++ standard to one that was not correct according to the standard. However, I do agree that it would work in all or almost all current compilers. You removed a line which had a comment specifically indicating that it should not be removed. And you removed a line that is specifically discussed in the article's discussion page. Furthermore, the reason I left a vandal4 templated warning was because there were previous warnings for vandalism from that address. As it is an IP address, though, these may well not have been targeted at you. Now, with all of that in mind, I believe it is reasonable to leave a vandal4 warning. Had there been no warnings on that talk page before, however, a vandal2 would have been more appropriate. Please understand that what I am trying to do here is to explain why I left the vandal4 warning. I am happy to discuss any part of this if you wish me to expand on it. If you still wish to have me stripped of my administrator privileges, let me know and I can explain about our dispute resolution procedure and point you in the right direction. --Yamla 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: "please don't just revert my change again. I did not just revert to my change. Instead, I reached a compromise that adheres to the C++ standard while avoiding the potentially damaging code in which ostream.h is included twice (once in iostream, once explicitly) without #ifndef checking, resulting in compilation errors. The new code still adheres to the standard by avoiding the use of the endl symbol, and instead making use of an escaped newline character."

Your change does not address the fact that std::cout is only defined in ostream, not in iostream, according to the standard. Please rather than trying to alter the article away from established consensus, please discuss your change on the article's discussion page. Thanks. --Yamla 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You meant the other way around; std::cout is declared only in <iostream>. 207.207.127.254's latest version of the "hello, world" program is non-standard because it makes use of std::ostream without it being defined. <iostream> may include <ostream>, or it may just declare std::ostream. The fact that he didn't use std::endl is irrelevant, as are his concerns about #ifndef checking and compilation errors.

[edit] Removing content from talk pages

Please do not remove content from talk pages (even your own). It is unhelpful, and merely deleting the content on the talk page so that it appears blank does not remove it from past versions of the page, which can be viewed by any member at any time in the history tab. If you wish to clear your talk page, then please archive - you can see WP:ARCHIVE for help on how to do that. MelicansMatkin 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is not your talk page. If you want your own page, please register an account! If you aren't sure how to do that, please just ask. --Yamla 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are now in violation of WP:3RR. Any further edits to C++ will result in a block. Instead of edit-warring, please discuss the matter on the article's discussion page and try to build a consensus for your change, as I have already asked. Thanks. --Yamla 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Guinnog, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gwernol 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This must be a mistake. I looked at the "3RR" rule and haven't even edited three things in the last 24 hours, much less the same thing 3 times!"

Decline reason: "Sorry, but since the anonymous editor at your university involved in this edit war last edited Wikipedia 12 minutes before your request for unblocking, I cannot in good faith remove this block. If you would like to edit Wikipedia before this block expires in 24 hours time, please email us as instructed on your "blocked" page using your @ups.edu email address and an account will be created for you in the meantime. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Please stop defacing this page. This is a shared IP address, so it is inappropriate for you to remove the SharedIP tag on this page and claim this is your personal talk page. It is also untrue that, as you claimed, you cannot edit this page since you keep editing the same untrue claim on here. If you continue I will extend your block and protect this page to prevent further disruption from you. Gwernol 03:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
After additional blankings of this page by 207.207.127.254 after the above message was left, I reported this to the incident board. Xerxesnine 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalizing User_talk:Xerxesnine

Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Thank you. Xerxesnine 18:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to make an account (it's very easy) and begin with a clean slate. If you start making constructive edits with your new account, it is likely that nobody will ever suspect that you posted under this anonymous IP. Xerxesnine 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

This message is intended for "Norvig", who has posted from this IP address.

I see you continue to post that warning on Xercesnine's talk page, and I am asking you to stop. I've watched this entire thing unfold and I can tell you that Xercesnine did nothing wrong. He was only one of at least 4 different editors who opposed your changes, and he never edit-warred.

If you continue to post this spurious warning on his talk page, I will request an administrator for assistance. An administrator can block your IP indefinitely and/or semi-protect the C++ page, meaning only registered users can edit.

Please consider registering an account and participating in a cooperative way going forward. Thanks. ATren 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Atren: Please don't add anything to my talk page again. Just leave me alone. I don't talk to you, or bother you: Just please, please leave me alone. If I could block you, I would. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.127.254 (talk • contribs).

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:207.207.127.254, you will be blocked for vandalism. Gwernol 11:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit this page. What you can't do is alter other users' comments to make it appear they said something they didn't, like you did here. Gwernol 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed. Seems pretty clear to me.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines contains the relevant guideline: "As a rule, don't edit others' comments." --Guinnog 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll further reference the vandalism policy:

Modifying users' comments
Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.

Clearly, this qualifies as vandalism, even if it is on your own talk page. ATren 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This page has now been protected for a second time. Please consider creating an account and making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Xerxesnine 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's how I get vandalizers to behave.

When they are being abusive to the pages, I tell them I'll track them down and claw them. Many of them have since shaped up and become really good, constructive editors. Wilhelmina Will 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, some user decided to be funny, and remove that comment. Anyway, judged by your reputation, I wouldn't go saying the sort of thing you said to me. Especially not when I am of a higher rank than you are. Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] December 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 America's Most Smartest Model, 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: America's Most Smartest Model was changed by 207.207.127.254 (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2007-12-17T05:22:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (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 The Way to Happiness, 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: The Way to Happiness was changed by 207.207.127.254 (u) (t) deleting 8391 characters on 2008-03-07T22:29:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Scientology bibliography, you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 7 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.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sea Org. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)