User talk:74.234.39.218: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:15, 8 April 2008

NOT ALL ANONS ARE VANDALS

As the entries below demonstrate, I have twice been assumed to be a vandal and had my edits reverted within seconds, without so much as a moment's consideration. Yet in both cases, I was totally vindicated. Please think about that before you slam me with another warning, buddy.

Beyond Sanctorum

You were indeed absolutely correct in your removal. Please accept my apoligies. Try keeping in mind what I've written clearly in my talk page, with a big "Important" header ;-). Don't be angry, everybody makes mistakes, I'm sure you're fully aware of that. Reverting vandalism at high speed is unfortunately error-prone, but it's also a vital task in keeping the encyclopedia running. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP SPaM

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM 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. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Df747jet (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless comments from Zenlax

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For the record

I am not a vandal. Is it possible that some of the other editors out there not only have the ability to read, but that they actually exercise this skill before throwing around accusations of vandalism? Please read this sequence of posts:

HP SPaM

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM 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. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at what you're reverting. This article is a nonsense article created by a vandal, and I was just calling a spade a spade. Who's the vandal, the guy who does the graffiti or the guy who washes it off the wall? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. It is a very well done spoof, but on reading more than the first part it becomes obvious that it is a put-on.

Blanking the article is really not the right solution here, since that tends to look like vandalism at first glance (and why I bit you by mistake here). The thing to do is either request speedy deletion by putting a {{db-nonsense}} tag on the front of the article, or by proposing deletion of the article with a {{prod}} tag and a description. This article is perhaps a little large for easy consumption as nonsense, so I'll try for prod and nonsense both. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the content of the discussions that preceded my edits. One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page. How petty can you get? Talk about avoiding the real issues. Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense". I will give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal. But everyone is calling me a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti. Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal? I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the amusement of anyone actually paying attention: A Comment on Personal Attacks

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Zenlax, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. iMatthew 20 08 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatant hypocrisy. I am the one who has been trying to get others to talk about content, and what has agitated me is that they have been completely ignoring the content issues. I'm being labeled a vandal for trying to remove a piece of crap nonsense article, and almost everyone is completely ignoring the issue. One editor admitted I was correct, another has admitted I'm probably correct but too fucking bad we don't really know for sure, and the others have all just ignored the issue of this incredible vandalism on the encyclpedia. Has everyone got nuts? How am I being chided when I am the only one who is trying to correct this situation? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 '''* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the ''content'' of the discussions that preceded my edits.  One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page.  How petty can you get?  Talk about avoiding the real issues.  Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense".  I '''''will''''' give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal.  But everyone is calling ''me'' a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti.  Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal?  I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. [[Special:Contributions/74.234.39.218|74.234.39.218]] ([[User talk:74.234.39.218#top|talk]]) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)'''
+== For the amusement of anyone actually paying attention: A Comment on Personal Attacks ==
 [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive comments. <br> If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{#if:User talk:Zelnax|&#32;as you did at [[:User talk:Zenlax]]}}, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4 --> <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]][[User:iMatthew/Guestbook|<font color=green>'''08'''</font>]]</font> 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)