User talk:132.241.246.111/archive1

The claim that Coulter is racist is a point of view, not a verifiable fact. Even if it were a verifiable fact, it is not relevant in the context in question. That is why your edits keep getting reverted. dbtfz^talk 03:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dbtfz. While there is no doubt she used the term "raghead" that does not prove she's a racist. I don't like Coulter any more than you do, but putting irrelevant insults into the American liberalism article isn't helping Wikipedia nor making a good argument against her. Better to let people make up their own minds about Coulter rather than enforce your view of her. Good luck, Gwernol 03:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"because isolated statements shouldn't define someone" - we agree :-) BTW, I'm not trying to suppress your views, just looking after Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I really do agree with you about Coulter. I also took a look at some of your recent edits, and you're doing great work. Keep it up. Best, Gwernol 03:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Van Gogh (disambiguation). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - Tangotango 04:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page you edited is a disambiguation page, which is intended to guide users to the correct article. There is no need to republish facts on the disambiguation page - only the name and a short description (e.g. Russian painter, English cartographer) are required. Please edit the relevant biography page if you want to. Thanks. - Tangotango 04:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- King of Hearts ^talk 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of and adhere to Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Since a number of editors object to the bin Laden link, I suggest you use the talk page to explain your reasons for including this link. Gamaliel 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Harriet Tubman, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking so long to respond--I usually try to be as prompt as possible, but I got distracted and didn't receive your message until just now. In looking over this case again, I still believe the edit should have been reverted; however, I have removed my warning because I do not believe your intention was to vandalize this article. In your comment on my talk page, you remarked, "...I know Harriet Tubman's brain damage was the result of her standing in the way of a white man who was trying to catch a runaway slave. I also remember she played up her brain damage when it was to her advantage." If you'll look more closely at the edit that WillC and I reverted, you'll see that neither of us took issue with the actual point you sought to include, but rather with the way in which you phrased it. In reverting WillC's removal of your edit, you replaced the correctly spelled "capturing" with the incorrectly spelled "captureing," and you added a phrase about her "brain damage," that I, at first, thought was a derogatory and innapropriate remark (though I now see that you did not mean it as an insult to Ms. Tubman). I also saw that you were editing from an anonymous IP account, which further influenced my opinion that the edit was vandalism. You did leave the edit summary "rv"; however, your revert merely replaced, in my opinion, gramatically and styllistically correct text with incorrect text. For these reasons, I eroneously marked the edit as vandalism, for which I do apologize.

You might want to speak to WillC or post a remark on the article's talk page asking for advice on how to incorporate the ways she used her disability to her advantage into the article, as it doesn't seem to fit where you placed it. You might notice that your previous edit regarding how she obtained her handicap was left untouched, as it does seem to flow with the rest of the article. I'd really like to encourage you to register for an account, as edits from anonymous users are far more likely to be reverted as vandalism, and please always use descriptive edit summaries--they are very useful in alerting other edits of what changes you make and your reasons for making them. Again, I'm sorry for accusing you of vandalism, and I hope this won't discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for alerting me of my mistake. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Frank James. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Fang Aili ^說嗎? 22:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to edit here regularly you ought to get a username. -Will Beback 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has an account. It's User:Grazon. He has an RFC too: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grazon. Most of his contribs are attempts to smear Republicans, usually by adding out-of-context quotes or external links. Rhobite 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I hope Grazon knows he can sign his name by hand when he's not signed in. It is confusing to deal with multiple identities. -Will Beback 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem, he rarely uses talk pages and rarely leaves legitimate edit summaries. Rhobite 05:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this talk page belongs to the IP, not to any specific user. If a user wants a page of their own they need to log in. Please do not delete material from here. -Will Beback 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you don't log in anymore, but either way you must still be a responsible Wikipedia editor if you're going to edit here. Please use edit summaries, explain all additions and deletions, make only NPOV edits, and all of the WP:5P stuff. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; why the removal of the newsmax links? ~ PseudoSudo 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> Newsmax lost it's credibility after this.

> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/goldstar.asp 132.241.246.111 01:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that story is five years old. You're mass-removing links at a rate of which you can't possibly verify their individual credibility; I definitely saw relevant ones in that batch. If you honestly think there is something fundamentally flawed with Wikipedia linking to newsmax articles, bring it up on a talk page. As well, make use of edit summaries, please, when removing anything non-trivial from an article; else people are going to categorize you as a nameless vandal and have no mercy in reverting edits. Thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> Well

> for the record I have no intention of removing everything linking to newsmax. and I'll take some of your advice. 132.241.246.111 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything? You've removed a few dozen in fifteen minutes. What's your criteria for removal of a link? ~ PseudoSudo 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this unexplained removal of a working external link? Yes, it looks like vandalism. The least you could do is write an informative edit summary. -- Hoary 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're writing edit summaries that hint at what you're doing. Good, that's a first step.

If you want to remove one or more links from a article, you should be able to muster the energy to explain this cogently (yes, in complete sentences) on the relevant talk page. Not just "[XYZ]=BS".

I'm open to persuasion, really. I haven't read the article whose link you're so keen to remove, but I have glanced at it, and the degree (and nature) of the advertising that surrounds it is tacky. -- Hoary 08:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After having been warned about your conduct with regard to Newsmax links, you're now doing the same with Human Events links. The link on the Tom DeLay article was to a piece by an experienced criminal lawyer who analyzed the indictment in terms of specific provisions of Texas law. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, and especially whether you like DeLay or not (I myself despise him), that's a legitimate ext link. On Barack Obama, your edit consisted of changing one digit in the URL so that it no longer linked properly to the targeted Human Events article. That edit was clearly vandalism. The right-wing POV warriors on Wikipedia are a significant problem, but the solution is not to become a left-wing POV warrior. JamesMLane t c 10:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Hiding talk 13:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Politepunk 08:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

132.241.246.111 08:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) {{unblock|The name of the celebration really does translate as Penis Day.[reply]

This account has been blocked due to repeated vandalism. You are welcome to edit after the block expires if you follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -Will Beback 06:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Morton Smith. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. 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. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please get people to agree with you by using solid evidence on tald pages before you "demerge". Thanks.--MrFish ^{Go Fish} 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

-Will Beback 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Once you get into the habit, it isn't hard. The only time I omit an edit summary is when I press the "enter" key by mistake. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure if your edit was well intended, but assuming good faith, I advise you to discuss such changes on talk pages before making them. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well in that case - until next time.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Tufflaw 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That doesn't make you blocked (only administrators can do that), but it does mean your edits will be monitored more closely than others, so please leave edit summaries and discuss changes such as reporter>hooker on talk pages. If not, they are next to guaranteed to be reverted shortly. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 06:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you still are. I'm afraid it's quite permanent.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 15:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Vicente Fox, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. cholmes75 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now if you provided similar proof of Ángel Maturino Reséndiz's involvement with the Republican party, it would just be perfect.

P.S. I was talking about the article's talk page, not mine. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About ANSWER Coalition: That link should not be added for several reasons: (1) It's in the wrong place. Nothing to do with immmigrant rights. (2) It's not relevant to anything. So someone associated with ANSWER is an asshole? Who cares? (3) Read the comments to the linked post. Turns out the person/people responsible weren't actually even associated with ANSWER. Kalkin 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page John Doolittle on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. 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. Mhking 05:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a wikipedia matter. Random non-notable blogs should not be linked to. I think it's fairly obvious what your goal here is. Stop it. You'll end up banned again. ---J.S (t|c) 06:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

1) John Doolittle is non-notable 2) I think it's fairly obvious what Mhking's goal here is 3) don't threaten me.

132.241.246.111 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1. John Doolittle is the definition of notable for the purposes of wikipedia. Have you read the pages regarding notability?

2. I can't threaten you with a ban. I'm not an "admin." I was warning you. If you don't change your actions you'll get banned again.

Wikipedia is not the place to push your agenda. In any case, you should be fairly happy with the Doolittle page, it's 90% about all the controversy and critisims. ---J.S (t|c) 06:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ted 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those two categories are in two different category trees. They are not redundant to each other as far as I know. ---J.S (t|c) 06:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About: Jeff Gannon Yes, yes, I'm sure there's plenty of dirt to dig up on the guy. However, labeling him as a "plant" and a "prostitute" instead of a "columnits" poisons the well beyond salvation. Please maintain NPOV. If you wish, add the word "controversial." --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're trying to prove by inserting the most inflammatory possible description of Jeff Gannon on the GLB people list, but Wikipedia requires that we maintain an NPOV approach. It's not that we disbelieve you; we know about the whole Gannon thing. It's a matter of what's the most appropriate manner to present the information — the list description has to be as short and simple as possible. His article can go into the added detail about why he's so controversial, but it is not appropriate to provide excessive detail on the GLB list. Bearcat 03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Michael Skakel on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. 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. Mhking 01:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Trilateral Commission. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Mets501^talk 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Bill Clinton. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. 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. Zpb52 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grazon: It is not appropriate for you to remove all Newsmax links you find. Please stop. You're removing valid references from articles with no consideration for WP:V. If you find a better reference for a fact, please replace the Newsmax link. If you doubt the accuracy of a fact, bring it up on the talk page. Rhobite 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all you care about is removing any Newsmax link you find, regardless of the context. If you cared about the quality of Wikipedia articles, you wouldn't have removed the Newsmax reference from Dick Morris, where it is clearly used in a relevant and factual way. Rhobite 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:132.241.246.111, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Zpb52 04:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Eric Robert Rudolph, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Zpb52 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --rogerd 04:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|I didn't vandalize the page I reverted it to the way it was before Rush fan showed up+added a link} 132.241.246.111 04:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Yes, by deleting all the warnings (which you shouldn't have done) you've got my attention. Now, what are you talking about? Please provide a link to the diff where you revert some page before "Rush fan" (a Limpbore lover?) did whatever to it. Thank you. -- Hoary 06:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article in question Eric Robert Rudolph.

BTW sorry.

132.241.246.111 06:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here (a series of three edits) you add the sentence "After the Olympic bombing, Eric visited his gay brother Jamie in New York, quoting Rush Limbaugh over dinner." You provide no edit summary.

Here you reinsert it, with the edit summary "this isn't vandalism this is what they talked about".

I'm only dimly familiar with this particular US rightist nutball. It seems that at least some other editors are certain that this event either didn't happen or is unimportant. Its importance aside (for a moment), where's your evidence for it?

I do notice that in this unsigned edit, 70.68.45.50 writes that this addition is "unnecessary" (without saying that it's untrue) and also is "an attempt to defame" the person he chummily refers to as "Rush". This is indeed unimpressive argumentation. Well, let's see something better. Really, I'm looking forward to reading it here, and I'd be even more interested if you could explain the importance of this factoid once you've demonstrated its verifiability. -- Hoary 06:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being nice Hoary but I think this will have to wait till tomarrow. 132.241.246.111 07:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite OK. (Actually it's better that you take your time and come up with something good rather than rushing to provide some support, however feeble.) I look forward to reading the explanation tomorrow then. In the meantime, stay cool. -- Hoary 07:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to [[:]], are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the block, after evaluating some of the edits you made. Happy editing, and apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on his P.R. trip to Iraq. Some random coincidence just didn't seem to be important enough for the article. ---J.S (t|c) 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:J.Smith and I have had differences of opinion, and I'm no fan of Doolittle, but on this I agree - the coincidence isn't worth posting to wikipedia. Just not important. John Broughton 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Trent Lott. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to "Crazy" Joe Davola was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Osama bin Laden on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you for your understanding. 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. Marysunshine 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]