User talk:209.247.22.166

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 209.247.22.166, is registered to Level 3 Communications Inc., and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, 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 and a block may be shared by many. 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 see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

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

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT 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] Peter Boyle

Wikipedia requires you provide a high standard of evidence for blanket deletions of properly footnoted citations. Please see Peter Boyle Talk page before making such reversions. --69.22.254.111 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand you're a wiki-newbie who has only been contributing from this IP address since Nov. 27, to articles including Theatre Rhinoceros, Seattle Repertory Theatre and Breakfast at Tiffany's (musical). But you cannot summarily refer to others' properly footnoted citations as inaccurate without providing authoritative evidence. In this particular case, even The New York Times itself provides different birthdates for Boyle. (See Boyle Talk page). If you continue, this may be construced as Wiki Vandalism and an Admin could block this IP. --69.22.254.111 15:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I got your message. Please understand that since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, there is no proof that you are Peter Boyle's cousin. I'm sure you can understand that no one can simply take an anonymous editor's word for something. That's just not the way Wikipedia works.
Please see Wikipedia policy on verification, The five pillars of Wikipedia, citation policy and What Wikipedia is Not. --69.22.254.111 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As it says on every edit page, right above the edit summary, content must be verifiable.
Sources the refer to the nervous breakdown include today's The New York Times. Please, I'm asking you to simply follow the rules we all must follow. If you continued to disregard policies about verification and neutral point of view, I'm afraid I'll need to take this to the Admin noticeboard. --69.22.254.111 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you're violating Manual of Style (biography) in removing subheads, etc. I'm returning article to proper MOS format. If you take Peter Boyle article out of format again, I'm afraid I'll have to report you.--69.22.254.111 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The NY Times article you cited doesn't even have the chronology correct. He was in the Navy BEFORE he joined the seminary, not after. I find these Wikipedia policies are ludicrous in that anyone can make any statements they want and cite inaccurate sources as proof and then falsehoods become truths. For example, he did not turn down The French Connection due to political beliefs, his agent advised him not to accept the role, a decision he always regretted. So why is the wrong uncited information allowed to remain and my correction keeps getting removed? And why do you keep reverting all the redundancies? Is sloppy writing acceptable? Go ahead and report me, it appears you are no less anonymous than I am. 209.247.22.166 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's try and work together. Keeping in mind one of the pillars of Wikipedia is No original research (meaning everything has to come from a cited source), let's just find sources that correct what you say are inaccuracies. Can't we do that? If Mr. Boyle was in the Navy before the seminary, then we can find a source that says so. [Addendum: Actually, while the Times has the Navy occurring afterward, the Wiki article doesn't, so we're good there.]
If redundancies were put back in, it was because we're dealing with wholesale edits. If you notice, I and most other editors generally make just one or a small handful of edits each time. This makes corrections and changes easier to track. If there are redundancies, change them one at a time to make it easier for what I hope will be your colleagues here. --69.22.254.111 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a start: I've put in a template requesting citation for the French Connection claim. If no one can provide a cite in a day or two, out it goes. --69.22.254.111 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
So what do you think? I've added an Awards section, slightly expanded the Young Frankenstein mention with a quote from Mr. Boyle about his thoughts on playing the role, and began a Quotes secttion with a long and trenchant quote from Ray Romano. Also early material on his touring in The Odd Couple. --69.22.254.111 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting content

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Image:Robdog and teddy hart.jpg. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Paxse 12:33, 29 June 2007 (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 Catalysis, 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: Catalysis was changed by 209.247.22.166 (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2007-12-08T17:44:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007 North American ice storm

Please do not put a deletion proposal on an article unless you have a real reason to do so. Your reason was complete opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you or anyone else to decide if my reason is "real" or not? FYI, anyone's reason by nature is an opinion, so your comment doesn't make any sense. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, an article can be too short, not referenced, not factually accurite, not well written, have not enough pictures, have too many photos,...you want me to keep going? But your reason is just that you, out of the dozens of people who have worked on the article, don't like the idea. Juliancolton (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, reasons for deletion include Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, so my reason for proposing deletion is valid, and your telling me my reason isn't "real" is wrong. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
i can have you blocked. Once an article is removed from the deletion propsal, yu can not tag it again. If you do it one more time, I will report you for vandalism. Juliancolton (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have asked an administrator to help with this issue. Stop harassing me. Just because you created the article doesn't make you right. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't write the article. I just feel that it is a neccisary article. I am not harrassing you, I am just trying to keep wikipedia an encyclopedic encyclopedia. Juliancolton (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Before you claimed my reason was complete opinion. Now you say you feel the article is necessary, which is complete opinion. So why am I wrong to have an opinion but you're not? I want to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedic encyclopedia, too, and I don't think this article qualifies. It was not a major ice storm by any means. Do you really think every time there's an ice storm where a couple of dozen people die and the power goes out an article about it should be written? You made yourself judge and jury and didn't allow my opinion to be heard. I think you were very unfair to remove my request. It deserves a discussion. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Juliancolton, you are not harassing this IP and are right that he shouldn't have readded the ProD notice, but you could have put that much more nicely (it is quite probable that he wasn't aware that you could simply remove the tag and/or that he should then not put the tag back up). Finally: can you please check source 3 (BBC article)? It linksto a report from January 2007, in the december 2007 storm only 22 deaths have been reported so far, it seems.

Dear IP, while Juliancolton overreacted a bit in one post of his, he basically is correct. If an event is important enough for major news outlets (ABC and so on), it is encyclopedia per the Wikipedia definitions. Anyway, an article where the proposed deletion has been removed should not be reproposed like that. You are free to take it to articles for deletion (you'll need either an accoiunt or someone to help you though, as you can't create pages), but I must warn you that it will with near-certainty be speedy kept, and that people may react badly to your suggestion. Please check WP:V and WP:N to get a better idea of what is expected for Wikipedia articles. You may disagree with those principles, but the chance that an article that clearly meets these requirements is deleted is very small. Fram (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

209.247.22.166, I am sorry that I have overreacted. I do appreciate your contributions to wikipedia. Juliancolton (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If more ice storms occur this month, can we expect to see articles for December 2007 North American ice storm #2, December 2007 North American ice storm #3, December 2007 North American ice storm #4, and so on? Shouldn't there be some rules governing how severe a storm must be before it warrants an article? The very title of this one is very misleading. The storm did not cover North America, it affected only a few states in the US Midwest.
As for an event being important enough for major news outlets (ABC and so on) to cover it, then I guess every time Britney Spears has a run-in with the papparazzi and the media covers it (which they always do, especially on a slow news day), then we can expect to see it mentioned in Wikipedia. That's encyclopediac? With all due respect, I don't think so.
I appreciate your apology, but the point I've been trying to make is that I didn't make most of the contributions listed under my IP address! I'm a casual Wikipedia user and definitely haven't accessed it as many times as the contributions for 209.247.22.166 indicate. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Power outages to 1.5 million customers and wide-spread significant effects to large areas is a very rare occurrence even in the US, but this storm merits more its article then most tropical systems that did not even touched land or made little to no effect. (i.e Tropical Storm Lee (2005), Hurricane Philippe (2005), etc. --JForget 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Your recent edit to October 9 (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) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Olivia O'Lovely, 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. Urban Rose 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Downtown (song) 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, 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.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRK0ZeMB4gI) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

[edit] Robert Irvine

Thanks for fixing what I missed. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)