User talk:217.38.66.40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks I caught it the other day. Gee, I hit the big time and got a nice plug on his blog. I find it interesting he desperately wants to know my identity. I'm just a nobody. I guess he'll just have to suffer. My user page gives him all sorts of too much information about me. James Randi used to wear a bullet-proof vest and had his home burglarized. There was some destruction to his files. I'm trying to avoid that and live in shadow. Radin is a cry baby. You are attacking me! You are attacking me! You are attacking me! Get real. Radin cannot understand genuine curiosity and criticism. Dorky things he says, and the things he avoids talking about, are supposed to be kept secret and forgotten. He's a trip. I'm not surprised he wasn't allowed to teach at UNLV....and look who did Charles Tart??? Go figure.....Gotta go I've got taxes to finish. Here's one for you; try the book MINE by Robert R. McCammon. Don't let the first chapter throw you. Thanks for you interest in magic. User:Kazuba 12 Apr 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Liberal Democrats. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mrf-rouk 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] June 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jat people, you will be blocked from editing. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Rajput, you will be blocked from editing. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ** BLOCKED ** /2/

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

soum talk 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Gujjar. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. utcursch | talk 08:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Revie

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Don Revie, you will be blocked from editing. ChappyTC 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And how is it that you can somehow work out in your mind that my contribution to the Don Revie article constitutes 'vandalism'? Vandalism is adding false information to articles. It is a fact of reality that Bob Stokoe and Gary Sprake have accused Don Revie of offering bribes to the opposition, as has Frank MacLintock and numerous other opposition players, which you can read about here [1]. I didn't write that the allegations were definately true, merely that there are allegations that have been made. This is one of the two main reasons why Revie's "reputation suffered" in the game, though the article dosen't bother to explain this. The fact that a major figure in British football history has been accused of attempting to bribe the opposition by senior professionals, an FA Cup winning manager and his own goalkeeper is most certainly highly notable information and should be there on the article, so long as it is not implied the allegations are to be assumed to be true. How dare you accuse me of vandalism and threaten to have me blocked for adding factual, accourate and notable information to Wikipedia just because it may show Revie in a bad light. 'Vandalism' is deliberatly adding false information to articles, not adding factually accurate information that someone else happens to take exception to. 217.38.66.40 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I feel your reaction was a little OTT. I used one of the Templates from WP:Vandalism using the second level one due to your IP having a history and being previously blocked due to vandalism. I intended to warn you that blocking does occur for repeated vandalism on wikipedia. Secondly the reason I used this template was due to the fact that you added some information which is highly controversial. When adding information of this nature it is necessary to provide a reference to the information so that users such as myself do not consider it simply a user trying to "blacken the name" of the subject in question (Accusing someone of match-fixing is a very serious accusation). I apologise if this information is legitimate, however I have reverted many highly controversial statements on both Don's and Billy Bremner's articles. People, even after their deaths, seem to want to insult these two particularly as they are the two most high profile from the Revie era at Leeds and that many people claim to "hate" Leeds because of this era. I was simply trying to stop any further un-true accusations being added to Don's article. Unfortunately on wikipedia it is not up to me to prove it is untrue, but to the editor adding the information to prove it is true, thus my edit was a legitimate one. If you however add this information providing the link as a reference (preferably using cite web) then I will not remove the information. In the future please try to add a reference, particularly when adding controversial information, as otherwise another user may revert your edit and add a vandalism template to your talk page. Regards. ChappyTC 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you for your explanation. I'm sorry if my response seemed 'OTT' but placing a vandalism warning on the IP talk page and warning me that I might be blocked from editing seemed to be suggesting that I had somehow sought to sabotage the Revie article with false information, which is not the case. I would have understood had a 'citation' tag been added to the addition and then the info been deleted if none were forthcoming. The IP address doubtless has been used for vandalism but this is a shared AOL IP address common to many AOL users, many in the North West of England I believe, it is not my personal IP address, for some reason that is the way it works with AOL. I'll add the info again tommorrow if I get the chance with citations as I think it is important that the bribery allegations are mentioned in Revie's bio because this was a major issue affecting Revie's reputation after he retired and I was very surprised that there is no mention of it at all on his page at present. The allegations are in fact already on Wiki, they are mentioned on Gary Sprake's page. I am well aware of the dislike of Revie and his Leeds team and how people have sought to blacken the name of Revie and his players over the years in various ways, but these are well publicised and quite serious allegations made by many senior players, managers and in one case even a member of Revie's own squad (funnily enough you mention Bremner, in many of the allegations made by Sprake and a Nottingham Forest goalkeeper, Bremner was supposedly the man doing the tapping-up on Revie's behalf, I'm not sure if anything is mentioned on Bremner's page, I haven't looked, though the allegations were certainly made long before he died). I think if there were similar allegations made about Ferguson or Wenger today they would hardly be excluded from their Wiki biographies. It's important not to imply that the allegations are to be assumed true as they have never been proven and there is no hard evidence as far as I am aware, it is the word of Sprake, Stokoe, MacLintock and others against Revie's and the rest of his players, but they are still serious claims and have been made by many notable figures in the game. I know Revie has come in for a great deal of criticism, at least some of it undeserved, but I don't think it's fair to just ignore controversial and significant claims of this magnitude, especially when it is probably the main reason, even more so that the Saudi situation, as to why his reputation suffered, which is not explained in the article.
Incidentally, I posted this here as I wasn't sure you'd see it on the IP address talk page, feel free to move it over there if you wish. 217.38.66.40 (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that if the information is legitimate then the information should be posted, I was simply removing controversial information until a source could be added as per wikipedia's policy. I understand that IP addresses especially in the UK are shared, however some are not and due to the severity of the vandalism history of the IP address I added the second level tag and not the first, again I apologise now that the information has been proved to be accurate. Thank you for adding the source. ChappyTC 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clapton

Sorry, I looked at the wrong source. I reverted my edit, and the warning placed here. Ward3001 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Barrington-Coupe

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to William Barrington-Coupe. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

To quote yourself, "Vandalism is adding false information to articles". -- Jmc (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)