User talk:72.0.72.121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:
This IP address, 72.0.72.121, is registered to E. I. Catalyst, Toronto, Canada. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts should be made to contact E. I. Catalyst, Toronto, Canada to report abuse, which can be done here. Contact information can be viewed in the WHOIS report.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, E. I. Catalyst, Toronto, Canada, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time.
If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

Km500 is vandalizing my user talk page. visit his user talk page to see his history of doing this, not just to me, but other people. that is why i have removed these unconstructive edits suggesting i have vandalized his article when i did not. sincerely 72.0.72.121 10:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Just James T/C 07:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i will continue to revert Km500's threats on my userpage, which stem from a single sentence i put on the talk page of New Jersey Devils questioning its status as a featured article. the sentence was reverted. i will also revert Km500's unconstructive vandalism of this talk page. if a neutral, unbiased third party would like to provide opinion on this, i am open to it. 72.0.72.121 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaking notices for vandalism. Unconstructive edits can be removed, same as pointless and irrelevant messages left on talk pages (ie what you did).
Krm500's action of leaving a low-level warning on your talk page was entirely justified by Wikipedia's rules.--The Fifth Horseman 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have called in an administrator. Yes, I gave you a information template notice since you had added an nonconstructive, unsigned, and aggressive message at Talk:New Jersey Devils. You are free to question the quality of an article but please do so in a proper way. On the talk page there's a link to the articles featured article candidacy where you can see why, or why not, an article received it FA status. You also left your message on the top of the talk page. New additions to talk pages should always be placed at the bottom under a new headline, or at the bottom of a current headline regarding the same topic. Since then you have deleted and/or altered my text on your talk page, that is not acceptable. You also copied and pasted my latest warning to you on my own talk page. --Krm500 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The IP is allowed to question the article's status as FA. The article definitely needs a copyedit after its trip to the main page. Also, users are allowed to blank old warnings.-Wafulz 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, admin. Kim500, i did not realize the message was at the top of the talk page. i tried to insert it at the bottom. still, i fail to see how the sentence 'how did this become a featured article?' justifies a warning that appears on my user page insinuating that i may be a vandal. i removed those warnings and their accompanying icons so that people visiting this user page would not assume that i, the user of this IP, am a vandal. i encourage you to look at the edit history of this IP over the past year. i hope you will note that my edits of articles are generally constructive and in good faith (and, in fact, most of the time are grammar or spelling related). having said all that, can i revert these notices now? the page looks distressing.72.0.72.121 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

one more quick thing: seeing that, as Fifth Horsemen says, unconstructive edits may simply be reverted or removed, why not just leave it at that for the original sentence? warning notices seem inappropriate in this instance, as my reading of your WP:DBN would seem to indicate. Krm500, yes i did repost your most recent warning notice (the one that said i was about to be banned) on your page, at the bottom. i notice you have since removed it. 72.0.72.121 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 72.0.72.121 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Actually no I haven't, someone else must have done it. Sorry if this got blown out of proportion, I didn't know you edit history and I left you a low level notice since you had made a nonconstructive and unsigned message on the talk page of an article. --Krm500 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ok. unless anyone else objects, i will revert the glaring header at the top and james' notice, altho i will leave the conversation between you, myself and the admin intact (obviously), altho it seems moot now that i am creating a user account. 72.0.72.121 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Metro systems by annual passenger rides has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


did you read it? it's completely constructive. check the information out. it's a solid correction.

It's not. You're removing one thing in the "B" section and putting in Toronto's metro. A possible conflict of interest? Will (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

READ the link. the last time i checked, and i admit that grade school arithmetic was a long time ago, 459 million was a higher number than 427 million. if you have updated information on the v-bahn that puts it at higher than 427 million since the 2005 figure, by all means please include it. but if you don't, leave it alone. i've provided you with cite-able proof. if you wish, call in an impartial admin to resolve it, but geez man this was an in-good-faith edit that you reverted after 30 seconds, not vandalism. again, the links are here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/toronto_transit_commission and here: http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/operatingstatistics2006.pdf 72.0.72.121 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)