User talk:76.105.183.246

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kenneth "Buzz" Shaw, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Kenneth "Buzz" Shaw was changed by 76.105.183.246 (c) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2007-12-01T07:20:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Kenneth "Buzz" Shaw, you will be blocked from editing. delldot talk 07:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I revert a lot of vandalism, and your edit looked like it to me. Was there something inappropriate that you were removing? In that case I beg your pardon. I do recommend using an edit summary explaining what you're doing so it's less likely vandal patrollers will mistake what you're doing. If you've been trying to help out and I reverted you I owe you an apology, so I'm sorry. Thanks for trying to clean up the project. Peace, delldot talk 07:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Looked back at your edits, this is the kind of thing you were warned for. That's pure vandalism, for which you'll be blocked if you do it again. If there's some inappropriate material in article please let me know about it. Peace, delldot talk 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. That was better, but I reverted it for two reasons. First, the wording was not neutral, in keeping with WP:NPOV, a core principle. Second, it was unsourced, in violation of WP:ATT, another core principle. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 07:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, calm down. I'm giving you a lot of leeway here, but next time you will seriously be blocked and there's nothing I can do about it. If there's something wrong with my edits, do please discuss it calmly with me. Peace, delldot talk 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I don't know anything about the subject at all. I was removing vandalism from articles, which your first two edits were, so I removed them. Your next edit was not vandalism, but it was also not appropriate, for the reasons I gave, so I reverted that too. I'm sorry, but if you put something in wikipedia, it has to comply with the policies or it will get removed, that's just the way it is. If the rest of the article is unsourced, that's indeed a problem, but it's not an excuse to add more problematic material. If you want the material to be kept, find a source to cite that says what you want it to say. If no such source exists, the material simply cannot be included in wikipedia. Peace, delldot talk 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, it's par for the course, trust me. Would you believe I revert hudreds of those a day? Special:contributions/delldot. Peace, delldot talk 08:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Wikipedia articles about living persons, as you did to Nancy Cantor. Thank you. The USA today reference you provided do not support the information you added. The website is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Please do not replace this material Slp1 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Slp1 23:09, 3 December 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.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Jmlk17, you will be blocked from editing. GlassCobra 03:09, 4 December 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.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. GlassCobra 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC

Oh, so does "useful" mean "positive" "prozac-laden" text? Oh, I get it. This is bullshit-o-CENSOR-PEDIA!

CENSOR - an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. 76.105.183.246 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing, you really ARE a CENSOR.