User talk:143.231.249.138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.
Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.

March 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to William Henry Harrison, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Chris (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2012 (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.

April 2012[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sam Graves, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 70.248.189.190 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Charles Colson, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from John Noonan (analyst) with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan653 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at John Noonan (analyst), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2012 (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.

Your recent editing history at John Noonan (analyst) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2012 (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.

Hello 143.231.249.138. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Brad Sherman, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2012 (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.

January 2013[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of cities and towns in California. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trent Franks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2012. Retrieved June 18, 2013 </ref> Nevertheless, the bill still passed by a vote of 228-196.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/house-passes-bill-banning-abortion-after-20-weeks/</
  • {| class="wikitable" style="margin:0.5em ; font-size:95%"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bill Posey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • **[[United States House SS&T Subcommittee on Oversight}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss[edit]

I have undone your two unexplained deletions of material on the Alger Hiss article from Sept 24 and 25th, 2013. Please do not delete content from an article without giving a valid reason either in the edit summary box, or preferably, on the talk page. Such changes can be considered vandalism.173.52.252.170 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Dabo Swinney, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli Talk 17:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rob Nabors may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • man for the job,' says [United States House Committee on Appropriations|Appropriations Committee]] Chairman [[David Obey|Dave Obey]], 'and he understands the House, he understands the committee, he

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm SQGibbon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Frak (expletive), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to UH, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli Talk 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm K6ka. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Home Alone, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. K6ka (talk | contribs) 17:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ken Calvert, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Arbor8 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Calvert, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Arbor8 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello. Your recent edit to Robinson Secondary School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Hello, I'm Cheeseman Muncher. I noticed that you recently removed some content from United States presidential election in West Virginia, 2008 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Teh Cheezor Speak 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States presidential election in West Virginia, 2008 with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jamesx12345 21:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to United States presidential election in West Virginia, 2008 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jamesx12345 21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, 143.231.249.138. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Corpus Christi, Texas, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Choco Taco. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Continuing Vandalism[edit]

The vandalism from this IP is steadily increasing. At what point should the IP be blocked? Almost all of the edits are being rolled back within minutes thanks to the congress-edits account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenthrow (talkcontribs) 15:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Representative, stop vandalizing Wikipedia.[edit]

Check their IP, it's coming from the house of representatives, and I personally say they be IP banned and all edits reverted. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617044904&oldid=604844827

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who is editing using this IP address (143.231.249.138), the above user's comments (by Bumblebritches57) should be disregarded. That edit was clearly not vandalism. Dustin (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin, you need to take another look at WP:VANDAL, which under the subheading "Silly vandalism" states Wikipedia's disapproval of adding patent nonsense to pages. The edit in question by 143.231.249.138 is patently nonsensical:
  • In spite of allegations to the contrary, the claims that extraterrestrials are housed in this facility are completely unsubstantiated.
Even his edit summary is frivolous: "There are no aliens here."
I remind you that nowhere does the article Nevada Test and Training Range mention aliens or extraterrestrials, much less does it contain allegations that extraterrestrials are housed in this facility. This is clearly a case of a vandal amusing himself at the expense of our encyclopedia, and it sucks. JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron: Regardless, that user still ought to be disregarded considering its previous, now removed comment. Dustin (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, despite the edit summary and the lack of mention of extraterrestrials, that still isn't "clearly a case of a vandal amusing himself at the expense of our encyclopedia" the way I see it. The edit should have been reverted, but I still wouldn't call that an instance of "obvious vandalism". Dustin (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin, are you aware of the context here? Aside from his long history of vandalizing Wikipedia from March 2012 onward (as shown above), user IP 143.231.249.138 publicly embarrassed us again today in a high-profile way by vandalizing our articles Alex Jones (radio host) and Abby Martin, predictably attracting the attention of the popular website infowars.com, which headlined its article U.S. GOVT. EDITING WIKIPEDIA TO SMEAR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PERSONALITIES?. Of course the story quickly went viral on social media, much to Wikipedia's shame. I cannot understand why you'd stoop to defending this jackal, who should have been banned for life long ago. JohnValeron (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron: I am saying that it wasn't obvious, not that it can't be classified as vandalism. Also, did you even read my earlier comment? "Regardless, that user still ought to be disregarded considering its previous, now removed comment." This is regarding "these" changes. I find it hard to believe that that talk page comment was within policy. Dustin (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I might support a temporary block. The reason for this is that I don't believe that it will necessarily always be the same person, representative, or whatever editor from the House of Representatives using this IP address. Someone else could have made the same bad edit as that which you linked. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin, I honestly don't care about some quickly removed use of the phrase "giving blowjobs to lobbyists," which seems to have robbed you of perspective. By the time I got here, that was long gone. I responded to your assertion that, in the context of the lead for Nevada Test and Training Range, the following edit "was clearly not vandalism."
  • In spite of allegations to the contrary, the claims that extraterrestrials are housed in this facility are completely unsubstantiated.
I believe this was intentional, unmistakable and in-your-face vandalism fully consistent with user IP 143.231.249.138's past misdeeds—which deserve to have consequences. JohnValeron (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron: Oh, I see what you are saying now. I actually meant to say "not clearly vandalism". Sorry, I didn't notice that until now. Regardless, as with most IP addresses, I would not consider an indefinite block to be acceptable. You can't always expect the same government employee to use this IP address. Say you have some library IP. Multiple different people may use that IP, and some of then may be constructive while others remain unconstructive. A temporary block would be preferable in these situations. Dustin (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose a soft block of much longer length might still be acceptable, though. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
These edits [1][2][3], clearly violates the policy on "Biographies of living persons" and "Libel"; also in its history one cand find the removal of sourced content and the use of another IP (144.141.194.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tracked to an US Navy facility in Virginia Beach) to undo the reversion made by a registered user; obvious vandalism in several articles:[4][5][6]. This I.P. must be blocked permanently due to its long-term vandalism, because as we can see above, this user has been blocked several times before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhakito (talkcontribs) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to allow edits from registered user accounts using this IP, but the anonymous edits are getting out of hand. Is it possible to block anonymous edits from this IP 143.231.249.138 but still allow edits from registered users? To the effect that further vandalism could be dealt with on a registered user level? I am not familiar with the granularity of IP Bans. The only reason I can see that this IP is allowed to continue editing is that is associated with Congress. If the IP belonged to a McDonald's with public wifi, it would have been banned a year ago. Tenthrow (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if it was from McDonald's, I doubt that it would be perma-blocked. In that case, it is virtually guaranteed that it won't always be the same person editing with that IP address. As far as I am aware, the majority of IP edits are with constructive intent rather than the intent to vandalize. In any case, with WP:SIP rules applying, an indefinite block of this IP address would be unacceptable. Dustin (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment from IP removed due to WP:BLP violations. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please add more info/cites to Draft:CongressEdits[edit]

Great start! But please review the further sources I added to the bottom, draw facts from them, and footnote said sources to said facts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one day for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Banned for exposing the truth? Are you one of the Kremiln's gremlins? Wake up sheeple! 143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Aren't there better things to do on US House computers or is the do-nothingness getting to you? Hcobb (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Different person here. I would just like to make clear that this IP adress is shared by a large agency that has 435 different offices. Unlike the poster above, I have only been making edits fixing grammar (the serial comma should be a standard Wikipedia policy). Also, the claims by the other user at this IP that Alex Jones is an agent of Russian government are completely absurd. Jones clearly works for Stratfor. Is this all part of some massive disinformation campaign? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello different person, please feel free to create an account so that your comma placements can be distinguished from claims of alien influence in various members of government. Tenthrow (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mediaite. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. –Wine Guy~Talk 21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Mediaite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Out of over 9000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? Some of use here are just making grammatical edits, adding information about birds in Omsk, or showing how one can patch KDE2 under FreeBSD. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
143.231.249.138 may be a shared IP address, but it is not "whole IP range." Why not ask the system administrator at your end to identify the persistently abusive user via date/timestamp on 143.231.249.138 logs corresponding to the vandalism here at Wikipedia? Then your sysadmin could report it to the user's supervisor, who should explain to the vandal that such misuse of a U.S. Government computer and Internet service is a criminal offense. JohnValeron (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You're always welcome to create an account. — ceejayoz talk 16:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have one, but I don't sign into with my password at work. Theoretically people could find out who I am, but good luck, I'm behind seven proxies. Haters gonna hate. I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" Pardon?Vysotsky (usurped) (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Almost that entire response consisted of Internet memes. It was written by the troll; disregard it. 108.3.188.161 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that Twitterbot is anything to go off of, then this IP address is the main one being used at the moment, and it is also the main one vandalizing. You can't really work around that without signing in. Dustin (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If an IP can be trusted to be responsible anonymously, then there is no issue. If you are banned for vandalism, the only way around is to use an account. If that account is vandalizing, then it will be blocked as well, if it is contributing, then there is no issue here. Tenthrow (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
According to WhoIs (and checked through current government employment records), the contact point to report abuse from within US House-controlled IPs is Stephen C. Pearson, Senior Network Systems Engineer, +1-202-226-3544, Stephen.Pearson@mail.house.gov; in case someone more-closely affiliated with Wikipedia than me would like to discuss this with his sysadmin.Mudlock (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Clarification sought: ceejayoz advises the user at 143.231.249.138 to "create an account." However, according to Wikipedia's Block log, admin Tom Morris at 14:08 today blocked 143.231.249.138 for 10 days, specifically including "account creation blocked." Please, strictly as a point of information, how would any user at 143.231.249.138 create an account during a 10-day prohibition against creating an account? JohnValeron (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I was unaware of this. Why is account creation blocked for a multi-user IP address? Dustin (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)