User talk:24.235.229.208

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Legitimate vandalism warnings

[edit] Peter Tabuns

Thank you for experimenting with the page Peter Tabuns on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page 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) 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. --24.235.229.208 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Edward Island

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Prince Edward Island. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 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. Hello32020 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. --24.235.229.208 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Torchwood, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. --24.235.229.208 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tests on user talk pages

Thank you for experimenting with the page User talk:Kjoonlee on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Kjoonlee 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Students' Administrative Council, University of Toronto

re: this edit:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Students' Administrative Council, University of Toronto, you will be blocked from editing. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chips Ahoy! edit with fraudulent edit summary

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Chips Ahoy!, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (Diff) Ford MF 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaius Baltar

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Gaius Baltar, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (Diff) Ford MF 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings that do not specify any vandalized page

[edit] By User:Egil

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Egil 20:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Give an example if you want to accuse me of something. --24.235.229.208 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By User:Big Brother 1984

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. And BTW... what's with categorizing warnings as "Unwarranted". If they weren't warranted, they wouldn't be so many of them here. -- Big Brother 1984 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful if you told me what page you are concerned about. --24.235.229.208 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about the Nazi comment, that was a well documented fact, not vandalism. I've added a reference to back it up. --24.235.229.208 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By User:Jim Douglas

Your continued joking is disruptive and considered vandalism, and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without another warning if you continue. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What joking? Where? --24.235.229.208 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted vandalism warnings

[edit] Arnold Schwarzenegger

Thank you for experimenting with the page Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This one was a legitimate edit. --24.235.229.208 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ck_lostsword

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:Ck_lostsword, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This one was a legitimate edit. --24.235.229.208 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Very true. The difference is that I was reverting vandalism; you were vandalising. Please desist. I was making use of the standard warning system based on your additions. Thank you for recognising that your edits were inappropriate. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that before banning me, I have over 3500 edits in the mainspace, most of which have been there for months. You’ll never find them all! --24.235.229.208 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Your recent edit to Wikipedia (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Padme

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism which, under Wikipedia guidelines, can lead to blocks being applied. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Please stop adding speculative nonsense to Wikipedia. If you don't think this character has aged, then find a source that says so. Citing the movie is not sufficient since, regardless of what the actress looks like, the character is 14 in Episode I and 24 in Episode II. This is verifiable information, your edits are OR. Dmoon1 03:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a referenced, NPOV edit. Even if you don't like it, it belongs in Wikipedia. --24.235.229.208 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Had you taken the time to actually read the article, the age of the character is clearly explained in the section "Appearances in Star Wars films" and the efforts to make Portman appear to age is explained in the subsection under "Production" called "Natalie Portman". Dmoon1 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Padmé Amidala, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Thank you.

Please use Talk:Padmé Amidala to make a case for your edits, rather than repeatedly editing the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Groundhog Day (film)

re: this edit: Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Groundhog Day (film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All men are created equal

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to All men are created equal. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 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. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see the American constitution as a reference, and I linked another article in case anyone wanted to read more about it. --24.235.229.208 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-vandalism related talk

[edit] The Nazi comment in Arnold Schwarzenegger

It's not appropriate for the article to place particular emphasis on the fact that Gustav Schwarzenegger joined the Nazi party. Yes, it's cited, but I've reverted it because it violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

If you'd like to make your case for that wording, please seek consensus on Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Place to Stand, A Place to Grow

Thanks for adding the Saskatchewan lyrics. However, you need to explain them, please - when were they published, who wrote them. At the moment thay appear out of context. Try harder please. Verne Equinox 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Rick Mercer

Hello, you left a message on my talk page rgarding vandalism to Rick Mercer. I have not edited this article so I would like to know why you posted this warning on my talk page?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, I did revert your edit. I did this because I concluded that your edit was vandalism.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to my earlier comments about your addition of "Nazi" to the Arnold Schwartzenegger article. Something can be factually true, and still violate WP:NPOV through WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As Rick Mercer's sexual orientation is not relevant to his career, it doesn't bear prominent mention in the lead sentence. It is mentioned, with appropriate weight, later in the article. I have noted on User talk:Natl1 that your vandalism warning was spurious. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop rearranging this page

  • Your characterization of messages as "legitimate vandalism warnings", etc, bears absolutely no weight, and only serves to confuse the sequential flow of messages. I strongly recommend that you stop fiddling with your talk page like this.
  • You said:
Rick Mercer's orientation might already have enough weight, but you can't use the undue weight argument for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The fact that the head of state of a major western political body was raised under Nazi values is extremely important and should be in the intro. I was just putting it in the part about his childhood, which is giving it less weight than it deserves. --24.235.229.208 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have two points to make:
  1. You and I both know that your edits fall into two general categories: (1) Outright vandalism, and (2) Edits that attempt to skirt the edge of outright vandalism, for reasons known only to you -- possibly to determine where the limits are, possibly for your own amusement. I've made it clear to you in my previous vandalism warning that nobody is amused by these "pushing the limit" edits.
  2. Regarding Arnold Schwartzenegger: If you can find a Reliable and neutral source prepared to make the argument that (a) Schwarzenegger was raised under "Nazi values" (whatever that means, specifically), and that this "Nazi" orientation had a particular effect on his political philosophy, then you are welcome open a discussion on Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger for the purposes of gathering consensus about incorporating it. Without such a source, your speculation about his childhood is original research. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

:That sounds reasonable. --24.235.229.208 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, did you find a citation for those Saskatchewan lyrics? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resetting the sandbox

I noticed your helpme in the sandbox, asking for the header to be restored. Here's a link you can use for that purpose: ask Sandbot to reset the sandbox. Hope that helps! --ais523 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block notice

Pleasure to have met you, please don't put frivolous warnings on my talk page ever again. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:13, 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: "I'm sorry if someone is upset, but I never made any rude or hostile comments. If anyone thinks I have harassed them, they have grossly misinterpreted my comments."

Decline reason: "You were adding highly inappropriate fake vandalism notices to the pages of users in good standing after you yourself have been vandalizing articles. Gwernol 00:40, 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.

I was trying to be polite when talking to the users, I didn't say anything rude or offencive or hostile. My comments about their edits were not "fake". Still, they blocked me anyway. What am I suppose to do?

Wait until the block expires and don't do it again. John Reaves (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
From my two past blocks, am I to understand that new users can never criticize established users for doing something wrong, no matter how polite and non-confrontational we are about it?
Calling another editor paranoid is a personal attack, just the opposite of polite and non-confrontational. Please stop adding helpme tags to this page, you have your answer: wait out the block and after that make constructive edits to Wikiepdia - edits like this one are not constructive. Gwernol 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm out

It has become clear that the admins are pregidous against this account and side against me even when the logged-in users are clearly violating policy. As such, I shall now be changing IPs, and hopefully the admins will decide that it is more important to make Wikipedia better than attack my new account for no reason. Good bye. --24.235.229.208 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)