User talk:64.154.26.251

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 64.154.26.251, is registered to Halliburton, 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] Comments

Do you have link or reference for you edit in David Bronstein? Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 11:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the above is wrong then change it578 (Yes?) 23:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to my user page

Please don't edit my comments on my user page. Edits like that are often considered vandalism. If any of the comments on my user page offend you, leave a message on my talk page. For the record, I have traveled outside this country, I don't hate America and I take offense at any suggestion that I do. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic marriage

Hey, It's fine to add information about polygamy but you really need to research the Islamic view more... at best that is sensationalist American media portrayal of Islam. At worst it's anti-Islamic propaganda... Thanks gren 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Do you disagree with my statement, or are you being snotty? Derex 05:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Test

Test

[edit] Re: Paul Konerko

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. 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. Thanks. 64.154.26.251 05:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC) aka 216.119.etc. series

[edit] GEwar?

What was your username? I can't figure it out from the posts... are you anthonywhitt?

Thanks for experimenting with the page Jack in the Box on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and 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. Thanks. Where (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GEWar, again

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Zanimum 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (Do not call anyone "thieves", unless they have been charged for theft in a court of law.)

[edit] Edits to String

Thank you for your contributions to the disambiguation page String. However, the information you provided is already included in the links to String (computer science) and String literal. If you would like to add more information, consider contributing directly to the article. Also, disambiguation pages have a general form, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). -- Natalya 18:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pasadena Memorial

Such edits as seen here [1] are not acceptable. Your IP address may be blocked if you fail to stop making joke edits. WhisperToMe 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from 82.45.250.155

Response to 'nonsensical edits' comment. I realise that I did not fully edit that section. The article contradicts itself, in the factbox it says that 285 people died, whilst in that section in says 296. I checked and found that there were 285 passengers aboard that flight, and 111 people died. I did not however make sure all of the passenger number and death toll figures agreed, something that had already been forgotten.

Just because something is referenced it doesn't mean that it's appropriately placed. I was too lazy to remove the reference. That 'not excluding herself' reads badly, is trivial, and adds nothing to the section. This is a woman who polarizes opinion. Whenever, there is someone or something like this, people try and balance it out with things such as this. The paragraph was not NPOV in the first place, at that little referenced bracket had been added hastily, rather like my edits.

Can I ask why you have been correcting/analysing my edits in a rather systematic manner.

[edit] Your addition of non-notable people to various date pages

Please stop adding non-notable people to the date pages; it is considered vandalism -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KBR article

Could you please stop using <s> and </s> on the KBR page? If you disagree with the content of said page, either delete the content, or preferably start a discussion on the controversial text in the talk page. Striking out main article text is not the way to do things; this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and you certainly wouldn't expect to see struck out text in Britannica! While I agree that the 1st text I moved from the article to the talk page was out of place, a broken link to a reference in the last case (I reverted your edit) doesn't call for a strike out or text removal. Carre 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Christmas carol, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huddersfield

I don't really see that your edit to the above article did anything to improve it, I assume therefore that it was a test of your abilities and/or accidental. I have therefore reverted it. Some editors consider such edits to be vandalism, so if you just want to play or to experiment, use the sandbox to your hearts content. Image:Wink.gif That way they will be less likely to block your IP address from editing altogether. Richard Harvey 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halliburton

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Halliburton, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. - auburnpilot talk 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Oman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Image talk:Stonehenge back wide.jpg has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. · AndonicO Hail! 19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Stonehenge constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. · AndonicO Hail! 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Aktau has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco5 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aktau, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DiverseMentality (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Lafayette Escadrille has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Soxred93 (u t) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)