User talk:71.112.115.22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello! My name is Eric, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I've noticed you've started making contributions, especially making thorough additions to our birthdates on each year, which is a great thing! On that note, I'd like to invite you to create an account. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, 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 stay for a long time. No matter whether you choose to create an account or not, I hope you will continue to be a productive (not destructive) member of our community as we strive to make this one of the greatest sites on the world wide web.

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 1941

You have obviously been doing a great deal of work on this article. But why did you remove the marriages section? That aside, if you are going to remove material from articles, please use edit summaries with some reason, and strongly consider creating an account. When an anonymous IP removes material without explanation, Recent Changes partolers like me are prone to think it is vandalism and reverse all your work.--Doc (?) 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Changes?

I'm going to echo the above comment. While its not required, it might be nice for you to put edit summaries for all these changes you are doing. For example: the removal of information from Francis Bacon (painter). I'm suspicious of so many rapid changes with no summaries by an anon editor, but for now I am assuming good faith in your edits. --Syrthiss 03:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop making destructive changes to year pages

I see you've been going round the year pages, unlinking some of the dates. Please stop if you haven't already. Both by consensus and for a practical reason, all instances of a date on these pages must be links. Wikipedia allows users to set the format in which dates are displayed, and this format is applied only to dates that are links. Unlinking them thus breaks the format for many of us. -- Smjg 09:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bot?

Some users have expressed concern that this IP address is being used to edit Wikipedia with a bot, an automated program, since statements on these talk pages have not been answered and changes made by this IP seem characteristic of bot activity. Unauthorized bots are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you are running a bot, please cease and desist immediately and read the policy for bots at Wikipedia:Bots in order to find out what you need to do to have this activity sanctioned. If you are not running a bot, please respond on my talk page within 24 hours to confirm that your activity is done by a human rather than a program. If no response is received, I will assume that this address is being used for a bot and I will block it from editing Wikipedia. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No answer, so I'm blocking. You can respond here on this page if you'd like to confirm that you're not running a bot. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] learn about Wiki purges

bot my butt.

Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently. All the admins on en-l openly admit counting any shred of persanal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me too, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these: a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. Here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy." On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Wikipedia" messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php "You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group " of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/ 193.39.159.3 12:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)