User talk:70.81.117.175

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning.
Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log
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 and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

Pg2114 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with 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. --Vizcarra 19:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in votes and elections
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian! --Ryan Delaney talk 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Extremes on Earth

Where did you find the -70 C for Resolute? Environment Canada at Resolute shows the minimum is -52.2 on 07 January 1966. Just a thought but did you use the wind chill temperature?

Also at the above address the daily average temperature is shown as -16.4 C and not -23.0 C. Can you provide your sources for these changes? CambridgeBayWeather 15:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The lowest temperature in Resolute I saw on a TV show where these British guys walk to the North Pole and they start in Resolute. When they woke up the next day it said, Resolute, -70.0C. And they did not include windchill because they said that.

The daily average I go from the Scholastic Book of World Records. They had a category for the coldest inhabited place on earth and No.1 was Resolute and it says -22.8 C.

I would not use the "British guys walk to the North Pole" as a source for minimum as it's hearsay. If you look at the Envionment Canada records for that day for Resolute it shows temperatures in the -32 C range too far off the -70 to be usable. These are the offical records and would be the one that counts and used.

The -22.8/-16.4 may come about due to the way the mean is calculated. Environment Canada shows records that go back to January 1953 for Resolute. However, they calculate the mean based on the maximum temperature plus the minimum temperature devided by two. Also they may only use data from 1971-2000. The Scolastic book may use a different method to obtain the average. So I won't change that back as both could well be valid.

However, I notice that you also changed the Snag entry from -63 to -70 while the US National Climatic Data Center shows -63. Do you have a source for that? CambridgeBayWeather 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Well about the thing on TV maybe the people didn't even realize that it was the coldest. And plus that website says only from 1971-2000 and -70 happened in 2004. Any excuse for that? And also I read the -70 thing in the World Records Book.

The maximums and minimums are for a not just for 1971-2004. The extreme minimum for Resuolute is in January. it was -52.2 on 07th January 1966. The 1971-2000 is what they use for the means. If you go here Resolute daily temperatures and use the drop down box to get Resolute and then set it for 03rd January 2004 you can see the all 24 hourly temperatures. The coldest is -32.9 C which is nowhere close to -70 c so it's not even possible that an error could have been made. If you check several days before and after the temperatures are consistant and remain well above -70. Also if you go here Top Weather stories 2004] you can see that Resolute is not even mentioned. Check item #6. It's extremly unlikly that Environment Canada is going to something like that. CambridgeBayWeather 01:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, Resolute is just some small little town in the middle of nowhere and it is in the freaking arctic and you still don't believe it. It is one of the most northernmost places on earth. I know what I saw. It said -70°C. My dad even remembers. Or maybe I should be more specific. It was just north of Resolute. It was close to Resolute but not in Resolute.

You can't use an unconfirmed source such as TV. They may well have reported a -70 for just outside of Resolute but TV is way too unreliable as a source. These sort of show wills distort and exaggerate the truth for dramatics. Also I know where Resolute is as I live in Cambridge Bay (also in the Arctic) which is just south of it. I've lived the last 30 years in the Canadian Artic and work in the weather rporting and reccording business. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather

[edit] Toronto

When you add statistics could you make sure that you provide a valid source. We generally rely on numbers from the census, and one needs good reason to alter these figures. Statistics like GDP are highly variable depending on how they are measured, and more information is needed for such claims. Unsourced figures will be quite quickly removed. - SimonP 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for statistics

Please cite sources and give reasons for the changes on the talk page when adding changes to articles. I perfectly understand your good intentions, but your edits could be marked as sneaky vandalism if you don't cite sources. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Look, I told you my dad works for GaWC and he told me Toronto is an Alpha city. Look at the size of it's economy! $360 billion!

I will attempt to find an admin to block you. You're edits to Toronto, Global city and related are vandalism. Marskell 12:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're repeated moving of Toronto up the list without a source constitutes vandalism. I don't care if your dad is Paul Martin. I have requested a block against you. Marskell 12:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Your insertion of incorrect figures into Winnipeg, Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada, List of sovereign states and other territories by population, List of countries by highest point, and other articles may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 21:52 Z
Again, please stop adding nonsense to the Toronto article - 7 million inhabitants and exactly equal (to the person)white and visible minority shares of the population? You really need to be blocked permanently! --216.90.243.3 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the fact about Winni-freaking-peg on Stats Canada. Even search up Icelandic-Canadian and it says that Canada has the most Icelanders outside of Iceland. Its a fact! As for Canada's population I took its current population, searched up the growth rate and thats what I got. Back to the Icelandic-Canadian thing, The Prairies of Canada has so much Scnadinavian blood! The Maritimes has Irish and Scottish blood, Quebec has French blood, Ontario has most of the German blood, The Prairies has all the Scnadinavian blood and the West has all the Ukrainian blood!

[edit] Citing your sources

You've added some very interesting statistics to the articles on hair colors. However, especially for that type of information, we need to have sources cited. If you could just say where you got your information, and include a link or something in the article, that would clear up all this trouble with reverts and so on. Thanks. -Branddobbe 18:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manitoba

It's hard to believe that you're subtle changes to the demographic numbers in the Manitoba article are in good faith. Please do not make changes to demographic numbers unless you can also provide a reliable source for them. Qutezuce 20:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not vandilizing anything! It's all true! It said Manitoba has 35% of all Icelandic-Canadians. Canada has 265,000 Icelandic-Canadians. And then I added up all of the other Scandinavian blood. I got it all from Statistics Canada. If you type into Google, Icelanders in Canada there will be an article that will say that Canada has more Icelanders(total number) than Iceland. - 70.81.117.175
You have provided no source that shows that there are 265,000 Icelandic Canadians, and by StatsCan numbers there are closer to 75,000. Please try to provide real sources, not things like "I read on a webpage" or "If you check with google", no one can check that. Qutezuce 00:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I put a link to the page from the page "Icelandic-Canadians". Oh, wait, you've probably deleted it already! - 70.81.117.175
I assume you mean this page. And I'm guessing you are refering to this sentence from the page: "Walter Sopher, membership secretary for Edmonton, jokes that more people of Icelandic descent likely live in Canada than on the tiny North Atlantic island, which has a population of about 265,000." You are misinterpreting that sentence. The sentence says that it is a joke that more Icelanders live in Canada then in Iceland, ie that it's not true. And the 265,000 figure refers to the population of Iceland, not of Icelanders living in Canada. Qutezuce 22:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

i KNOW THE 265,000 STATEMENT IS THE POPULATION OF ICELAND. BUT WHY MAKE A STATEMENT THAT ISN'T TRUE?

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2005-11-6 21:29 Z

[edit] Blocked

Your IP address 70.81.117.175 has been blocked for three hours because of alteration of statistics to unverifiable values, contradicting cited sources—after repeated warnings. Specific incidents include "Montreal", "Ukrainians", and "Ukrainian Canadian, where numbers were altered to arbitrary values ignoring the references present in the articles". —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 16:33 Z

I also found misleading statistics entered in this user's edit of "Thunder Bay" on November 26. —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 16:58 Z

[edit] Response to your email

On Dec 10, 2005, at 18:49, you wrote:

"My info about Ukrainians is not Canadians with full Ukrainian blood, it's Canadians with just a touch of Ukrainian blood and full Ukrainain blood."

Your info does not meet Wikipedia standards for citing source. If you don't cite a source, then for all anyone knows, you just made the numbers up. Furthermore, when you changed the figures but left in the citation of Statistics Canada's authority, you turned the article into a falsehood.

You've been warned about this repeatedly, and if you continue changing statistics without citations you may be blocked from editing indefinitely.

Response: I do have a source! When I get the chance, i'll do everything again and i'll put a source

"Montreal - Montreal being 86.8% Caucasian is rediculous!"

Statistics Canada currently says 85.4% white. I'll update the page when I have a chance. —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 22:09 Z

Still Montreal being 85.4% White is rediculous! I live hear and it is definetly lower than 85.4% White. I would say at least 65% White. I got that from the same website to!

[edit] Sources

Today, you posted figures to Red hair and, once again, did not bother to cite your sources. You have obviously been warned over and over and over again that you have to cite your sources. You've already been blocked at least once for doing this. You can't just cite them once someone complains to you. Are you having a problem understanding this? Is there something we can do to clear up your misunderstandings? Or are you simply deliberately attempting to vandalise articles?

If there's something we can do to help you understand, please let us know. Otherwise, please stop doing this right now. --Yamla 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus calculations

You cannot add Statistics Canada's demographics figures, because they allow multiple responses. In fact you shouldn't do any calculations for such stats, or rename the categories, but merely present the original; this is original research, which is not allowed.

E.g., English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh figures cannot be added up to give a figure for "British Isles". Someone who responded Irish may also have responded English on the census, so if you would be counting that person's response twice if you added the two categories together. —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:44 Z

[edit] Blocked 24 hours

Your IP address 70.81.117.175 has been blocked for twenty-four hours for entering statistics with unverifiable values, contradicting cited sources—after repeated warnings. The specific incident was in "Saskatchewan". —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:50 Z

Here is a relevant quotation from Wikipedia:Vandalism. —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:56 Z

Sneaky vandalism
Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

It isn't bullshit!

[edit] Blocked 48 hours

Blocked 48 hours for continuing sneaky vandalism. Examples:

—Michael Z. 2005-12-22 16:39 Z

It is true there are 38.4 million black americans!!! see Demographics of the United States!!

[edit] Rugby

The reason for removing your changes from the Canadian rugby team page is that you did not provide any source to back it up. The USA team rugby page has the exact opposite of what you put (despite your edits otherwise). If your edits are correct then you need to provide a source for them. Qutezuce 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked 48 hours again

For entering false statistics and uncited information in Manitoba, after many warnings and several previous blocks

  1. Manitoba: entering statistics differing from those at the cited source (diff)
  2. Manitoba: unsourced information, likely false (diff)
  3. Canada: entering statistics differing from those at the cited source (diff)
  4. Canada: false statistic (diff)
  5. Saskatchewan: unsourced statistics, likely false (diff)
  6. Forrest Gainer: false statistic without source (diff)
  7. Norwegian-Canadian: false data ([1])

—Michael Z. 2006-01-4 17:41 Z

Also rolled back, because these edits are suspect. Most of these are modifications of existing "racial profiles" which are obviously distorted data, and may not constitute new entries of false data: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], graffito: [15]. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 18:29 Z

What did i do wrong??? i provided a source!!! what did i do wrong?! So why on the Icelandic page does it say (in some parts of Canada (Manitoba)??? For the Racial Profile, i provided a source from Statistics Canada! For the "Scandinavian" thingy, there is a lot of people in Canada of Scandianvian descent!!! take Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, Finnish, and Danish and add it all up! The result shouldn't be approximately 1,040,000 people! that's more than the Dutch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs)

As you've been told before, you can't add the Statistics Canada figures together, because they represent multiple responses. Doing so counts people multiple times, completely distorting the statistics. Your made-up figures for "White" people are false, and you know it. This constitutes repeated sneaky vandalism, after previous warnings and blocks. You've wasted too much of other people's time cleaning up after you. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 18:07 Z

You don't even know if it is false yourself!!! And it is not made-up! i didn't just type any numbers! that is made-up! what i did is i added everything up and i provided a source!!! Maybe i made a couple of mis-calculations, but it doesn't mean i am vandilising this crummy site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs)

These were all certainly false. There is no published statistic which includes the proportion of "White" people for Canada, and no published statistic from which this figure can be derived. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 18:38 Z

Your the one who's doing the vandalism here! When i say Asian, i mean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc. When i saw Indian i mean East Indian, West Indian, West Asian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Afghan.

I put 981,000 Norwegian-Canadians because it says 1,000,000 on Norwegians page. I didn't put that there! How come the person who put it there isn't being harrassed by you guys!? Or i should say it used to say 1,000,000 Norwegian-Canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Blanking your talk page

I'm sorry, but anonymous users are not allowed to blank their talk pages. If you'd like to get away from this history, I'd suggest creating a username. -- MicahMN | μ 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you gonna respond to my message??? why did you let some one else get away with "vandalism"!? That person put 1,000,000 Norwegians in Canada!!! explain that!

[edit] Blocked two weeks

This IP's block has been extended to two weeks, due to repeat offences.

When your block expires, please contribute consider the advice above and make a good contribution. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 20:37 Z

Well, i did make good contribution!!! i provided a source! you blocked me all the other times cause i didn't provide a source, that i can understand! but this time i did provide and source and maybe i did the calculations wrongly!

[edit] Blocked three weeks

As above. —Michael Z. 2006-01-31 05:40 Z

I would like too know why I am blocked for 3 weeks! Whenever you say provide a source, I do provide a source! What was wrong with what I showed you?

A paid-registration site is not a verifiable source, and there is no way that the figures which wildly contradict Statistics Canada could be correct.
These games you play are vandalism. —Michael Z. 2006-01-31 16:29 Z

What games? At least I provided a source! If you don't like it, is it my fault? now I know that a "paid-registeration site" is not a "verifiable source".!


Your website is just a heep of crap! all you do is just steal info from other websites so you can make yourselves look good!

[edit] User Page Vandalism

Please do not vandalise my user page. If you have a beef with me, please use my talk page. Thanks. Lankiveil 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Source of statistics

Please wp:cite your sources when making edits to Wikipedia articles! Your edits to the article Richmond, British Columbia have been reverted until you are able to provide a reliable source. Thanks, Andrewjuren 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked two months

You've been repeatedly warned about fabricating statistics. These made-up numbers have to be rooted out, what a waste of other editors' valuable time. I'm blocking you for two months this time. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 15:41 Z

Oh brother, what did I do wrong this time? provide a source?

[edit] Demographics changes

Please go back and re-edit your changes to the demographics sections for Canadian cities. You have to appreciate that there is a huge difference between ethnicity and race. You seem to have muddled these terms up. And PLEASE for Heaven's sake, restore the Wikilinks. If you don't make these changes yourself, they will probably need to be reverted, as they are incorrectly defined. Thanks. --Arch26 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with what I put?

Well can you at least tell me what I did wrong? I provided a source and made sure the percentages were rounded up as close as possible!

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not (necessarily) your rounding that's the problem, but your insistance on trying to turn statistics on ethnicity into racial statistics. StatsCanada doesn't use the concept of race. Ever. Period. The way you divide and change the framework of the stats has an effect on their meaning, even if the numbers you give are consistant with statscan. Whether intentionally or not, you're twisting the meaning of the stats. For instance, the percentage of people not included in ethnic groups doesn't equal "white" or caucasian. Nor does people who don't list themselves as a visible minority. If you can't reproduce all the statistics in the way they were collected (and you don't seem to be able to) please don't include them. For more information, see Statscan Ethnicity -- TheMightyQuill 17:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty lame excuse, but I guess I have no choice.


I have a question, how do you upload pictures?

[edit] I commend you

You and I are making Wikipedia a much better place. --24.109.206.88 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you upload pictures?

You need to create an account like the losers. It sucks.

I have an account.

[edit] Misleading statistics

I see you are back to using misleading statistics. Pleas don't do that. The conclusions you are inferring cannot be supported by the statistics you are using. This was pointed out to you above by TheMightyQuill. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning for continued abuse

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. heqs 07:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well why not tell that to the people who vandalise the american statistics? There are not 8 millions Swedish Americans! There are not 6 million Norwegian Americans!

This is your last warning. The next time you deliberately introduce incorrect information into a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. heqs 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, please refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. --Yamla 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? I read the last warning and I didn't do anything?

[edit] Angus MacAskill

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Angus MacAskill. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - RoyBoy 800 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What did I do to Angus MacAskill? I was going to add him to Category:People with gigantism until I realised he was a "true" giant.

[edit] Vandalism

Again, stop posting false, racially twisted statistics to pages.

Your edits[16] to Island of Montreal, Marymount Academy, and other pages are not welcome. -- TheMightyQuill 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the Island of Montreal vandalism! I provided a source! and didn't you read what I wrote in the discussion page for Marymount Academy!!!??? I said "I go to Marymount!"...I got my info from the yearbook! I go there! OKAY!!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! FUCK YOU!

Look, I realise you're like 13 or something, so I'm not going to argue with you. The statistics you provided are not backed up by the source. You can't just combine groups like Koreans and Chinese into the category "Asian." When stats are collected, it's a very technical procedure, and if you toy with them at all, it renders them biased and pretty well useless. Second, your info from the yearbook is not cited on the page. If you just went through the yearbook and counted people you think look White, that's independent research anyway, not allowed on wikipedia. Look at the other city pages in Canada, and note how ethnic background has been reported (faithfully from Statscan). If you can't do similarly, don't do it at all. -- TheMightyQuill 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no I didn't. I know these people and I read the last names.

That's still Original Research. Besides, you can't know everyone well enough to know their complete family backgrounds. My last name is Irish, but I'm only like 1/8th Irish, if that. -- TheMightyQuill 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But your white. So there. And plus, im not colour blind
I am removing this comment. Please do not vandalize your own usertalk like this - otherwise, you'll be blocked. Thanks
Fuck you.

How could you have any idea what colour my skin is? Me having one greatgrandparent who is irish means I must have pale skin? Even if the rest of my family is all Cree, or African, or... ? You can't tell by someone's name, and you can't even tell by looking at someone what their ethnic background is. This is exactly the problem with your stats. -- TheMightyQuill 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But most of my school are kids of immigrants parents, so their all of 1 background.

They aren't all of one background, that's what I'm trying to say. Just because you think they are doesn't make it true. Let's look at your stats:

  • White - 30.5%

White isn't an ethnic group. Are they scottish, finnish, turkish, french, russians, what? If they're from the east of Russia, should they be considered white or asian? Same with turkish?

  • East Indian - 27.0%

Are you including Pakistani in this group? Bengali? Because they aren't the same. Maybe they're from Kenya.

They are all from India or Sri Lanka.
  • Black - 22.4%

Are they recent immigrants from Somalia or South Africa, or the descendants of slaves from the united states? If they are from Northern Africa, their first language might be Arabic, would that make them Arab? How dark do you have to be to be considered Black?

No. They are from Jamaica.
  • Asian - 10.2%

East Indians are Asian, I hate to break it to you. So are Arabs.

  • Arab - 6.3%

I know there are plenty of Persians in Quebec, and they most certainly aren't Arabs. Are you including Persians in this group? Can you tell by looking? What about North Africans, from Libia or Tunisia? -TheMightyQuill 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, people from Sri Lanka are not East Indian any more than people from the United States are Canadian. All of the people you called Black are from Jamaica? Every last one? Not from any other Caribbean islands? And you can tell that from their last names? Anyway, I'm tired of this. I don't actually care about the population of Marymount Academy. Stop posting these racial categories that are totally wrong, and racially twisted. There are nice examples of how Statscan info can be used well on all articles on major Canadian cities. Like I said before, if you can't do similarly, don't do it at all. -- TheMightyQuill 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't care, why are you so excited to take it off? How is it racially twisted? Those stats aren't going to be 100% true. Just like with the Census, that isn't 100% true. And what would you classify Sri Lankans as then?

They are racially twisted because they are forcing people into racial groups which do not exist in real life and have no basis in science. Your groupings are not based on anything but your personal whims, which is why (as pointed out above) they are usually wrong. I would classify Sri Lankans as Sri Lankans, if they consider themselves Sri Lankan, or maybe South Asian if they prefer that term. The benefit of a Census versus your personal guess based on their last name, is that it gives people the right to describe themselves by the identities they feel are accurate. -- TheMightyQuill 01:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The StatsCan figures cannot be added together to create summaries. The original census allows multiple responses and the total is greater than 100%. For example, someone with multiple ethnic backgrounds could have reported themselves as both Indian and Pakistani. Since they are counted once for each group, adding those two groups together to create an "Asian" category would count both of their responses, leading to meaningless figures.
User:70.81.117.175 has been informed of this before, and has chosen to continue fabricating statistics known to be incorrect and entering them into Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 02:38 Z

[edit] History of vandalism

Before engaging this anonymous editor in too much discussion, please have a look at an earlier revision of this talk page, so you can appreciate the history here. This editor persists in revisionist changes to demographics figures, and will not be convinced to do otherwise, even after being blocked for up to three months. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 01:56 Z

Yeah, I know. some of those comments are mine. But I'm going to assume good faith, and assume he's an confused kid, not a troll. I'm not really interested in going any further /w the argument though. -- TheMightyQuill 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This anonymous editor's confusion has wasted far too much of other editors' time hunting down and restoring their contributions in the past. They obviously are only interested in continuing the activity and arguing about it. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 02:28 Z

[edit] Blocked six months

Since user:70.81.117.175's previous three-month block expired, he or she has:

The user has previously been warned repeatedly and blocked multiple times over such behaviour. I've now blocked this IP again, for double the previous duration, six months.

User:70.81.117.175: if you are interested in coming back to wikipedia after the current block expires, I hope you can contribute constructively, according to the consensus guidelines. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 02:31 Z

I also blocked user:Alm93 for six months. That account was being used as a sockpuppet to circumvent the previous block of user 70.81.117.175. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 05:59 Z

Who is Alm93? That person lives in Edmonton! Marymount is in Montreal. And why are you blocking me if I atleast provided a source!

[edit] Why?

Because the site didn't show the claim. I think that's why I did it. Although, I would like it if you supplied the link again so I can double check. Whsitchy 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC831768 http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Record-Setting-Weather.html

[edit] Blocked again

3 months this time. Riana (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why am I blocked? I provided sourced and I made sure I did.

[edit] AfD nomination of Countries with the most highrise buildings

An article that you have been involved in editing, Countries with the most highrise buildings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countries with the most highrise buildings. Thank you. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Aneroid, Saskatchewan, you will be blocked from editing. Tiptoety 18:42, 17 October 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.

Perhaps you didn't see the source that I provided at the bottom of it. http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N49W107 You guys must be pretty bored if you block me for providing sources.