User talk:70.185.250.195

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~. Gamaliel 15:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please try to avoid using profanity in edit summaries. Thank you. Gamaliel 05:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your change to the page Talk:Pottawatomie massacre was determined to be unhelpful, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. Royboycrashfan 10:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edit summaries

Re your edit summary "try NPOV you fucking idiot", this is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA, please refrain from such in future. --pgk(talk) 10:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the section you added, the place for disputes concerning the contents of articles is the talk page, not the article itself. Continuing to violate the basic requirements for civiility is liable to end up in you being blocked from editing wikipedia, stop now pleae. --pgk(talk) 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk message

Read WP:CIVIL it explains why your language is unacceptable and in appropriate. Please also read WP:NPA. I agree with you that using weasel words is not a good thing, but the way to resolve that is not to become abusive but to set out your point on the talk page in an intelligent and reasoned manner. --pgk(talk) 10:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added an NPOV disputed tag to the section of the article you seem to have a problem with and started a section on the talk page to discuss it. I obviously cannot comment on problems you have had in the past, provided the details you provide are within the bounds of NPOV and verifiable (i.e. cited) then quite possibly they shouldn't have been removed. Generally if you find a section you feel has an NPOV problem, either fix it. i.e. Don't delete it, and/or discuss the problem on the talk page. Please also add talk messages to the bottom of talk pages. (You can use the + sign to start a new section) and sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~ --pgk(talk) 10:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You might also like to read WP:POINT --pgk(talk) 11:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your current edits are disruptive to wikipedia's purpose of writing an encyclopedia, please stop. If you continue I will have to option but to temporarily block you from editing. --pgk(talk) 11:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your talk message

If you find yourself in a position of dispute with another editor then you can look to WP:DR for advice on dispute resolution, this includes information on how to gain the assistance of an admin if one is required. For some of the problems you encountered an RFC on the article maybe more appropriate if you can't gain the cooperation of the other editors. --pgk(talk) 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It appears that you may have been involved in a dispute over editing, however, edits such as the ones you made to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection are considered vandalism. Please consider the measures in our dispute resolution process instead. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OPEX (Corporation)

Don't let the decision of one person dismay you. The article has been created. I suggest you a create a username for yourself. BhaiSaab talk 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "He supports torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners"

Please note the following wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided; Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources; and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. John Broughton 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule, you should establish a consensus on an article's talk page before adding potentially inflammatory material. -Elmer Clark 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I linked to facts. All of those senators voted against john mccains amdendment that would prohibit torture. I dont know what else you want.11:24, 23 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs)
On my talk page, you said:
hey man. you deleted some of my edits for no good reason. all of those senators voted against john mccains amendment that would prohibit torture of prisoners. i dont know what 'source' you want, if the United States congress is not good enough for you.
like i said before, wikipedia is being taken over by thought police who dont care about reality.
When I deleted your text, at Ted Stevens, I said in the edit summary: rv per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material.
Your source for what you added was a BLOG. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow BLOGS to be used as a source, generally, and NEVER for negative information.
You could have provided a direct link to the vote itself (on a .gov page), or you could have linked directly to a newspaper article. Then all someone would have been able to argue is that you weren't correctly describing what the source said. But you linked to a BLOG. That's a violation of wikipedia policy. It has nothing to do with "thought police" or "reality". And if you think that BLOGS are acceptable sources for wikipedia pages, then I suggest you go to the policy pages and try to get others to agree to change the policies. Otherwise, don't use BLOGS as the source of what you add to wikipedia.
P.S. Please observe the following, on your talk page and the talk pages of others: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. John Broughton 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
why should i have to sign anything? i have been using wikipedia for a long time, and one of the points of it is that you can 'tell the truth and run', the facts can stand on their own, the author becomes irrelevant. and yes, be sure i will rewrite every single one of those senators pages with links to 'better' sources, which are basically just harder to read and harder to get to than the 'blog' (which was actually an article written by a freelance author, ie, if youre gonna attack a source, you better attack the facts the source is stating). as for wikipedia 'policy', whence this unelected untransparent bureaucracy? i never agreed to any of this, and i have posted dozens of things to wikipedia, starting about 4-5 years ago. you know, before it was cool.
Just be sure you'll telling the truth and not putting uncited material in articles. -- Craigtalbert 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This IP address was recently used to vandalize a Wikipedia article. If vandalism continues from this address it will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

If this IP address is shared between multiple users, then your edits may be unrelated to this vandalism. To avoid being included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans, we invite you to create a user account of your own. 19:50, 19 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs)

i love how i can be accused of vandalism, but no reference being given to what that supposed vandalism was. of course, if i want to change a single verb in a wikipedia article, i need to cite some official reference source. but i can be accused of vandalism without any link, without any date, and without any accuser listed. wonderful. wonderful system you guys are developing, such an improvement over the 'old wikipedia' where anyone could write anything. oh wait, they can write anything, as long as they are in the 'good old boy' circle.

[edit] Your edits to User:Craigtalbert

Please do not edit my user page, if you want to leave comments for me please put them in my talk page. 19:51, 19 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs)

User pages are intended only for use by the user. I have moved the warning that was posted by Craigtalbert from your user page; it is now in the section above. If you have posted to his user page and the comment is still there, I strongly recommend that you delete it as an act of good faith. John Broughton | Talk 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

From what I can see by your edits, you DO want to contribute to the encylopedia. However, I think that there are some rules you're unaware of, and because you're unfamiliar with these, you're getting frustrated by what others do.

  • Sources: One of Wikipedia's strongest rules is that it's not enough for something to be true - it has to be 'verifiable. (See WP:V). "Verifiable" doesn't mean "you can listen to the transcripts of the show itself if you doubt me". It means that the facts in the article are supported by a written, reliable source (WP:RS. Another ironclad rule is "no original research" (WP:NOR), where "research" is broadly defined. So, for example, adding "most of the reader comments in the forum are technical questions" is unacceptable unless you're (say) getting that fact from a newspaper article. If you've counted the reader comments yourself, that's orginal research.
Why does this rule exist? Because it stops fights. "Truth" may seem obvious to you, but in fact different people are absolutely convinced of totally opposite things ("George Bush is the worst President ever" - "No, Bush is a pretty good President dealing with difficult issues"). If anyone could was allowed to put anything that is "true" into an article, there would be huge edit wars
  • Citations: I noticed that you had (correctly) edited an article about dolphins in a China, changing a tense to indicate they were extinct. If the article didn't cite a source saying that (and it might have - I didn't look), then it would have been very helpful if you had added a sentence or two about that, and cited a source. (If you don't know how to do that, drop me a line, and I'll provide a link or two to helpful pages.) The great thing about citations is that other editors (a) believe you, because you've demonstrated that you're not just writing something you believe, or think you heard, and (b) can check the source, to confirm what was written, and then correct or enlarge it as necessary.

So I hope you hang in there, assuming that these rules make sense and are something you can live with. John Broughton | Talk 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


actually the strongest principle is that the person who has the best connections in the wikipedia circle of politics gets to decide what is 'properly cited' and what is not. i have written plenty of edits/articles (not from this IP) with immense citations and sources only to watch them be destroyed and erased by others, with no help from 'net nannys' like yourself. do not insult my intelligence with your condescending attitude and your lecturing.

[edit] Warning

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. -- John Broughton | Talk 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Trolling is not permitted on the Wikipedia. Any further examples and you will be blocked. Please consider contributing constructively instead. --Yamla 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 hour for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Yamla 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who do you think you are?

You said: "how dare you accuse me of 'trolling'? what on earth are the specific requirements for a 'trolling offense'? what on earth is the matter with you? who decided that 'trolling' was a 'crime' on wikipedia? What exactly is 'trolling'? what is the burden of proof? what is your evidence? what is your problem? who do you think you are? you have absolutely zero right whatsoever to talk to me this way, to treat me this way, or to accuse me of these things. you should be ashamed of yourself, as should wikipedia for implementing these ridiculous policies."

Oh come off it. Some of your edits have included statements such as "an affront to civilization", "self-righteous blowhards", etc. Your trolling has no place on the Wikipedia and if you continue, you will be blocked again. --Yamla 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Oden 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

  • Don't make jokes. Everyone here speaks English pretty well, but they're from all over the world, and you're communicating in writing Jokes don't do well if you're not in the same room. Jokes that involve legal threats - well, the Wikimedia Foundation runs on a shoestring (six full-time employees), and no one is paid to investigate whether a violation of WP:NLT was a joke or not. Their goal is to minimize the risk to the Foundation (the folks that own the servers and pay for the bandwith that makes this possible.) Nope, you didn't know, and now you do, so it's time to move on.
  • Understand that admins aren't paid - they're volunteers. They don't have to put up with people who they don't think are being constructive. That includes incivility, soapboxing (what exactly did you think you were doing posting to the talk page of the ISP of Qatar?), arguing rather than apologizing, and a bunch of other behavior that has nothing to do with improving articles. You've been blocked twice, and you can either change what you're doing or almost certainly end up permanently blocked, because there are too few admins and too many problems for admins to get into long discussions about rights and who did what and so on. (You really should (re)read WP:NOT, particularly the part about democracy.) If that doesn't seem fair, well, sometimes life is that way.
  • If you don't want to help build the best encyclopedia in the world, go elsewhere: there are blogs, forums, personal websites, social sites, and much more on the Web that will let you say anything you want without anyone citing rules at you.
  • If you do want to stick around and help, consider a fresh start as a registered user: Wikipedia:Why create an account?. As long as you stop with the non-constructive stuff and stick to improving articles, no one is going to try to associate this account (defunct) with your new account. Again, if that doesn't sound like fun, then this isn't the place for you, sorry. And good luck, whatever you do. John Broughton | Talk 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DoomsDay349 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

-- im a volunteer... and yet nobody is concerned about all the time of mine that has been wasted by people censoring my articles, criticizing facts, and so froth.

as for you doomsday, jesus was not white. that is not 'nonsense', it is a fact. it is also a fact that wikipedia 'admins' have censored edits to this fact from the jesus article, and jesus' eethnicity is not even in the article at all. that, my friend, is nonsense and would not be accepted in any academic study of jesus. it amounts to intellectual dishonesty.