User talk:67.171.170.241

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We need an episode stauts for Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show)! 67.128.87.106 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a blurb at the top of the page; that should be enough. 67.171.170.241 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini hablame aqui 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Concerns

  1. Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles 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. --Kukini hablame aqui 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The supposed loss of content was due to rewording. 67.171.170.241 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 48 hours due to a violation of our three revert rule on Frank Rossitano, and for personal attacks there on User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. - Mark 04:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is all a big misunderstanding. Jeffy has been repeatedly removing a section of the page, ignoring all attempts I've made to have a discussion instead of an edit war. I believe I have behaved appropriately, being properly humbled before Jeffy's perfectness and all, but I hope you won't hold any of this against poor Jeffy. Oh, and, if it's not too much trouble, I'd liked to unblocked. I know I'll never manage to achieve Jeffy's unreachable level of perfection, but I'd at least like the chance to try. But none of that's really important, I'm really looking out for Jeffy here. 67.171.170.241 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I deeply regret having to say this, but I believe it is my solemn duty to point out that Jeffy himself broke the three revert rule on the same page. I sincerely hope an obvious honest mistake won't apply to someone as perfect as poor Jeffy, but someone as humbled as I am before his greatness can only leave that to your judgment. 67.171.170.241 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Your sarcasm isn't getting you anywhere. The three revert rule says you can only revert three times in 24 hours on any one article. He reverted 3 times, you reverted 4 times. - Mark 06:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the "three revert" thing was my mistake. For the record, the issue it NOT whether the "hat" section should be included on the Frank Rossitano page, but whether there should be a discussion about it first or, at the very least, whether Jeffrey O. Gustafson should provide an explanation that is actually an explanation and not a sarcastic put-down. (On the talk page he wrote "We are an encyclopedia. I've linked the word for people who seem to forget what that is," which surpasses any of my comments in everything but cleverness.)
The "indiscriminate collection of information" section of WP:NOT does not explicitly cover the issue, as Jeffrey O. Gustafson seems to believe, and I believe there is definitely room for some POV. Again, this could have been settled in a debate, but Jeffrey O. Gustafson was just too good for that. He went on repeatedly deleting the section even after I added a big honkin notice that said not to for the time being. YOU tell me what I was supposed to do. 67.171.170.241 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

  • You have been blocked for 5 days for further incivility, ignorance of policy and disruption at Frank Rossitano. Deiz talk 05:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have displayed no incivility towards Jeffrey O. Gustafson since the first time I was blocked. While this first block was justified according to policy, this one is purely political. Unblock me now or I will find a lawyer and sue the Wikimedia Foundation! 67.171.170.241 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You attacked them in the HTML comment in this edit. Further, legal threats are forbidden; I'm therefore extending this block to two weeks. Veinor (talk to me) 05:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That was a revert, restoring the page as it previously existed. I wrote that part prior to the original block. I'm sorry, I believed you were referring to the complaint I posted on Mark's talk page. I officially withdraw my threat to sue. 67.171.170.241 05:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm downgrading the block back to 5 days; whether or not it was a revert, the point is that you attacked them in that edit, so I won't unblock you. Veinor (talk to me) 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's pretty reasonable. 67.171.170.241 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decade nostalgia

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Addhoc 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?

You recently reverted my edit to Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? stating that it was POV. You are correct, it is the point of view of almost all Wikipedia editors that articles should not contain excessive amounts of non-encyclopaedic trivia. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Scope_of_information which is clear about what should and should not be in Video Game articles. - X201 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from 3rd Rock from the Sun. Please be more careful when editing articles 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. Evilclown93(talk) 13:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.


This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to 3rd Rock from the Sun, you will be blocked from editing. Arienh4 13:10, 10 June 2007 (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.
The deleted content was already moved to its own page. 67.171.170.241 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, go on

Hello there!

You're doing a fin job adding the "X was a common year starting on..." to the year articles, but please don't remove the NOTOCs while you're at it. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 16:58, 26 August 2007 (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 47 BC, 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. 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. Shoessss |  Chat  01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 48 BC. Your edits appear to constitute 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. Shoessss |  Chat  01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to 49 BC, you will be blocked from editing. 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. Shoessss |  Chat  01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to 50 BC, you will be blocked from editing. 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. Shoessss |  Chat  01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think those edits are vandalism? How are they any different from the ones I did to the years 45 BC and onwards? It's the same principal. Even if it is different, don't you see how I could've made that mistake? And you blocked me for "continuing" this "vandalism" after I was told that it was vandalism! If this is what Wikipedia has become, I will no longer be a part of it!

67.171.170.241 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment – LOL, Once is a mistake. Twice a misunderstanding. The third, I did not explain myself right. The fifteenth time I am sorry you are blocked. 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
I'm willing to unblock, but I ask that you use edit summaries to explain what you're doing: I'm not convinced that what you're inserting is strictly correct (even though those years were pre-Julian, we're using Gregorian years in the chronology). Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked, with apologies, after reviewing the format of other years. Do us a favor and use edit summaries from now on: it's a lot easier to figure out what's going on. Also, a response to other editors' concerns would help; we don't always know what mass edits are doing. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment – please accept my apologies. 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
I've rolled back my rollbacks (it works both ways) to your version. Easier than reinserting. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. 67.171.170.241 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

I'll support you if you decide to appeal your block. KJS77Talk 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I'm not sure what the point would be. In my opinion, Wikipedia has turned into an impossible bureaucracy and I'm not sure that I want to have anything. I've already decided on previous occasions to completely abandon it, but I keep coming back to do a few edits on occasions. However, I might just do it for the principal of the thing. How do you appeal anyway? 67.171.170.241 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind.67.171.170.241 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untraceable

Saying Untraceable is social commentary on internet schadenfreude, or internet voyeurism by your earlier edit, is original research. If this is actually the case, it should be easy to verify with a proper reference. To follow your M*A*S*H analogy, you should also have to provide a proper reference to classify it as anti-war. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so all information must be verified through third-party sources. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate you adding the ref. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Rock Taskforce

I've noticed you've recently made numerous edits to articles related to the television series 30 Rock and I was wondering if you would like to show support for a 30 Rock taskforce in voting to start one. The taskforce would help maximize the quality of articles related to 30 Rock and help organize 30 Rock articles. If you wish for taskforce to be created, paste this code " # ~~~ " here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#30 Rock. Thank you. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Sorry about that. Vandal fighting is a bit intense right now. --SharkfaceT/C 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)