User talk:68.109.223.137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 68.109.223.137). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] +

Please read Talk:Fox News Channel before reverting again. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE read and respond to the talk page! I wasn't destroying the article, I was simply moving it to a seperate article! — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


You have been blocked for violation of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Back again? Please read the talk page. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR on Fox News Channel - and accused me of being a sockpuppet. Please discuss civilly on the talk page - "I got all day" doesn't indicate a desire for consensus. Trödel•talk 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Check your facts, Trodel - (1) I never called any specific person a sockpuppet, and (2) I was the first to be accused of sockpuppetry on the Talk page {"You may want to do a sockpuppet check on 68.109.223.137. --Aaron 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)" "I wish I could. I might report it on AN/I — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)"} If you want civility, take the time to read what I wrote rather than revert 30 seconds after my edit. I spent a while enumerating a decent argument, and my edit was reverted within the minute (this is a matter of record).

Blocked 48 hours for repeat edit warring and 3RR violations. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse, for anyone interested, but this isn't exactly my own person IP address. Why can't I access the page for edits? Even the talk page is blocked from me. That's highly suspect, and I hardly think worthy of any genuinely "fair" organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.223.137 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Peter North's Penis Size

I don't see how you or anyone else can possibly believe Peter North's penis to be of average size. Please see these four links for plenty of comparative pics, which illustrate just how truly huge his appendage really is:

| http://www.yummystars.com/galleries/pn/alicia_rhodes/ Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

| http://www.freepornofreeporn.com/free_pic/gallery_018/pornstar/peter_north/pooecopicda.html Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

| http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=49&f=peter_northvery_very_big01.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

| http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=49&f=peter_northvery_very_big02.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

Considering that the average woman's head is close to 8 inches in length from chin to hairline, and North's penis is seldom shorter than his female co-stars' heads, that makes his listed length of 8.5 inches a fair, if not somewhat conservative, estimate. The same goes for his reported girth of 6 inches. Please see Peter North's discussion page for additional commentary, especially my notes concerning the statistics of human penis size.

Solcis 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm 6'3", and my head is 7 1/2" from chin to hairline. Again, I ask you, what "average" women are you referring to?


Sorry, but I misspoke on this issue. The average woman's head is roughly 8 inches in length, from chin to the top of the head; the visible portion from chin to hairline is about 7 inches in length. Take a look at the last two (picture) links. North's penis is clearly just as large as every single one of his co-stars' heads in those pics. And he's more than an inch longer than the size of Leah Luv's visible face (chin to hairline). She's the blonde in the second set of pics. Even if her visible face isn't quite 7 inches in length, that still makes North's penis a minimum of 8 inches in length. That, in turn, would make his pubic bone-pressed length 8.5 inches in length, if not slightly greater. Please see the four posted links above, along with some of the new additions on the discussion page for more reasons why the size of Peter North's penis really is as big as many of his co-stars say it is.

Solcis 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to John Holmes. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a disagreement with Solcis, and I referenced my material with a much more in-depth examination of the evidence. Please show me where, in doing so, I vandalized the article!

Thanks.

Please see my response on my talk page. Might I add that you are referencing a suspect source, which goes against the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"Might I add that you are referencing a suspect source" -- I agree photos can be manipulated, but this source also includes movies, which obviously have not been manipulated. How in the world can Wikipedia call itself "objective" if it's looked at the older, hard-to-come by films? In many films Holmes did after becoming a star, his penis is obviously quasi-erect at best. Do yourself a favor and check out the "suspect" source again. Now, explain to me how that movie was faked!