User talk:71.228.10.185

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.

The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
(Account information: block log • suspected sockpuppets • confirmed socks)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to College Republicans. It is considered vandalism. 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. 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. frymaster 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You also may not blank warnings on your talkpage. Sorry. Picaroon9288 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
71.228.10.185 has made multiple deletions of properly sourced information in the Mark Kirk article. In fact, this user has violated the three revert rule. In light of the concerns listed above, this appears to be a pattern. I will closely monitor this users edits. I ask an ADMIN to please consider placing a block on this user. Propol 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
71.228.10.185 deleted information from the Mark Kirk article for a 4th time, without any discussion on the talk page. In addition to blocking this user, perhaps the page requires semi-protection. Thanks. Propol 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Mark Kirk page you have already removed the same material four times and these changes have met with the objections of other editors. Please be aware of three revert rule and please discuss your changes on the talk page of the article with other editors. Gamaliel 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

71.228.10.185 deleted warnings from the talk page and then launched an ad hominem attack on my talk page. This behaviour is not productive and if continued will lead to your account being blocked. I see at least three other users that do not care for your conduct. Propol 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You must source your claims that you keep posting on Dan Seals page. You can't simply post a claim like that and not source it. EJFinneran 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating the three revert rules and making personal attacks on other editors. Circeus 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked again by User:Miborovsky for violating the three revert rule.

[edit] Suspected use of another IP address

Based on edits, it appears the user of this IP address has also posted at 67.175.163.15. John Broughton 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this user is using at least three IP addresses. Please see User talk:24.15.70.92. Thanks. Propol 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Revert Rule Violations

Please read the three revert rule. You have violated this policy at the Eric Hoplin page amongst others. No edit summaries or use of the talk page occurred. It also appears that you may be using multiple IP addresses, so it is difficult to fully track your deletions. You have been warned before and even blocked, but you have failed to improve. I suspect that you will be blocked again. Thanks. Propol 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Gamaliel 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. In many of your edit summaries, you have made personal attacks. This is an example. How is noting someone's family status vandalism? Please look at your own contributions. There are many items which qualify as personal attacks. Thanks. Propol 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. -- Szvest 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)