User talk:97.114.21.39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, 97-114-21-39.roch.qwest.net, is registered to Qwest, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.


Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


[edit] Vandalism by Theaveng

Do not randomly delete citations from articles without FIRST discussing the deletion inside the Talk page. (And next time, log-in instead of being an anonymous nobody.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't citations. They were Spam. I will keep deleting the spam as long as you keep putting it in that article. We need a useful CECB page not a sales pitch. You're welcome to open discussion on the article discussion page itself on the issue, picking a fight here is very immature of you.
Very immature? Don't insult me. I am not spamming anything. I am listed a REVIEW for the Artec receiver. It's just as valid as other links people are using to Amazon or Best Buy. [edit] (or solidsignal.com in the reference section at the bottom of the page) ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Then follow what's been set as precedent and don't post sales garbage inline with the table. Don't make me hold your hand here, learn from the mistake and move on. edit There is one link like the ones you spoke of on that page. That one which is questionable also and yours are the only non-direct-manufacturer links which offer sales. You're spamming. STOP IT. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OKAY IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE SALES LINKS, then I am removing the Channel Master link to the solidsignal.com STORE, which does not belong. (I believe you put that there; you should not have done that. YOU SPAMMER.) (hey you called me a "spammer" first, so now it's your turn to reap what you sowed.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Childishness doesn't help us to create the best CECB article possible. Grow up and help constructively, collboratively, or please please just go away. We don't need someone destructively altering things out of spite. Help us or go "help" another article instead. ps Let's not let the article discussion reach a low point. Let's remain factually objective and cordial, shall we? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Comparison of CECB units

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Comparison of CECB units. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ---—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talkcontribs) 18:43, March 8, 2008

Dude you don't get to warn me because YOU got warned. Troll. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article no longer fits inside a standard 1024x800 screen

Too ____ many columns. I tried to fix the problem by merging columns, but of course my time-consuming changes were immediately reverted. I feel like I wasted my time. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Works fine on my standard 1280x1024 screen. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
1280x1024 is "standard" according to who? Nobody. The most popular size used by Web browser users is 1024x768. Reference the wikipedia article on Display_resolution#Current_standards. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a standard according to VESA kid. Oh and the all caps/all bold stuff is really making you look like a jerk. Just a little FYI for ya.--97.114.21.39 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)