User talk:67.129.121.254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Info-pictogram.pngAttention:

This IP address, 67.129.121.254, is registered to TKC Communications, Virginia, United States, an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the internet. This IP may be randomly assigned to a different person when the current user disconnects. Warnings or messages left on this page may not be received by the intended user. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.


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. Doc (?) 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This message is regarding the article Alt.usenet.kooks. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia that people have worked hard to create. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [ contribs • block • block log ]--Nick123 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This message is regarding the article Alt.usenet.kooks. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Nick123 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just vanadalised the entry for "scorpion"--84.92.186.150 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] December 14, 2005

Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. Am I making a point? I hope my point was not too substantive. I found that policy you cited humorous. Yes, it had some valid points about hoaxes and what not, but a lot of that policy is instructing people what to protest and not to protest through dialogue and how to argue and how not to argue. Yikes! I can't think of a more repressive way of depriving your adversaries from what is universally recognized as normal skills and information. Why doesn't Wikipedia just ban the use of all intelligence by individuals arguing with administrators?

If I thought Alt.usenet.kooks was merely pointless, I wouldn't pay it any attention, but there are some big issues here being taken up. If I'm getting in the way of the defamation delivery machine, that would be a positive thing, but actually I'm not getting in the way. Alt.usenet.kooks is here to stay and will be hear for decades (or until someone is voted kook of the next millenium). But there's a price to pay for this kind of abuse of the Internet, and that price is a dialogue with individuals who happen to have a victim's perspective on what you're doing. So providing you put up with minimal nuisancing from time to time, you'll find that you are perfectly free to use this pop trash encyclopedia to abuse as many people as you like.

Vandalism of alt.usenet.kooks AfD page noted. User's comment above suggests that the vandalism will continue. Peter J Ross 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The stalker who identified himself as "Peter J. Ross" has a valid point. If I have been deemed to have behaved in ways consistent with the definition of vandalism, either correctly or as a matter of convenience (i.e. based on sheer disagreement), it would be incumbent on someone to block my IP. Someone should sort this mess out. I promise you wouldn't be hurting my feelings.

Done. You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] December 27, 2005

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, such as those you made to Sci.psychology.psychotherapy, 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 hard work of others. Thanks. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No they are not. What you are doing is considered vandalism. Let the due process run its course. I created the article. It is verifiable and NPOV. You cannot possibly maintain your position in the face of comparison article Alt.usenet.kooks. You are looking absolutely terrible on the Web right now. I have been circulating my report, complete with screen captures, about the conduct of you straw authorities here in Wiki and I have been circulating it around the Web on listservs. You would not appreciate the responses from the civilized world.

http://www.fireflysun.com/en.wikipedia.org.php

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Leithp (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Just restoring the original draft until due process takes its course. I created the damned thing, so I can't be its vandal.

[edit] User:Tai Streets

Editing both with and without a username does not allow you to avoid normal Wikipedia policies, like the 3RR. -Will Beback 19:36, 4 January 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dream

Hi — if you'd like the link you've added to Dream to stay, please respond on the talk page to my argument. --Mgreenbe 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Note that Wikipedia may see print or DVD publication, so we want more content, not more web links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not revert the page without explanation. The links you have added are considered by the present consensus to be spam. Further action without discussion could lead to being blocked from Wikipedia. --Mgreenbe 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I am not informing the admins about your spamming is because I know you to be reasonable; seriously, the links are unacceptable due to their commercial content. What we can talk about, however, is the other material you reinserted: old paragraphs of yours on the Freud/Jung difference.
I've suggested on the talk page that the extra Jung material be added to dream interpretation; such an in depth analysis should be there first, not on dream. With your clear knowledge of the subject, why not help the page? Can we discuss this? Consensus is not an issue of who can revert the page more often. --Mgreenbe 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page archives

If you'd like something cleared, either contact Wikipedia by e-mail or by IRC on irc.freenode.net, channel #wikipedia. Editing the archive leaves the name in the history. --Mgreenbe 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So if someone does not want their names affiliated with the encyclopedia, either categorically or as a result of the fact the process pushes their contributions out, leaving only the material connected with debates, then respect their wishes to edit out their names.
In other words, the exposure of your hackery could screw up your relentless SEO campaign. Got it.
You made your own bed, "Wyatt", you get to lie in it. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Not true; your first paragraph on Jung has been left in at dream; I plan to integrate the second paragraph into Jung's section at dream interpretation.
I fail to see what is defamatory about your own signature on the talk page. But all of this argument is moot: you can either go to an admin or not. That's that, no more discussion. --Mgreenbe 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Contact Wikipedia by e-mail to clear a person's name from Wikipedia. Editing an archive does not adequately clear a name, as the name is still visible through the corresponding history page. The Rod 17:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, please go to the page Wikipedia:Contact us if you would like to have the name removed. It has been made very clear to you, as evidenced supra. --Mgreenbe 11:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I took your advice, but I respectfully submit that until they comply (if they comply with my request), I will do what is required to protect myself. I have not made any content changes to Wikipedia except to try to expunge my name and IP address from it. For a variety of reasons, I do not want to be associated with this body of work. But for reasons unfathomable, you and others are hell bent on preserving my name and IP address. You won't accept my research, but you insist on maintaining a record of my attempts to add this material and a record of the flaming directed at me. I just want out.
Thanks for taking that advice. Note that the insistence to use admins to remove yourself from the talk page is in your best interest. Only the admins are capable of doing so because page histories are otherwise accessible to any reader. The Rod (☎ Smith) 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

This message is regarding the page Cyberstalking. Please do not add commercial links—or links to your own private websites—to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Note that Wikipedia may see print or DVD publication, so we want more content, not more web links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Image:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)