Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your IP address, 62.25.106.209, is registered to Energis plc and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
This IP address is part of the range 62.25.96.0 - 62.25.111.255 owned by Energis plc. It is regularly used by employees and customers of that company, and by bona fide editors, of whom User:Nick Boulevard is one, as well as by vandals, as evidenced below.
If you would only log in, we could thank you for the editing you've done to bring Gospel of Barnabas up to scratch. --Wetman 11:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am echoing Wetman's thoughts. Get an account. Your edits are great. Refdoc 12:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see others have beaten me to it in congratulating you on your work. Get an account or don't, but keep it up! - Mustafaa 20:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re: Jack Silver. 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. - BanyanTree 16:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Your edit was factually incorrect, therefore, I undid it. Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon unequivocally condemned Natan-Zada's actions, calling them "a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist" Thanks. El_C17:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's definition of terrorism
You deleted my amendment regarding Israel's definition of terrorism on the page about Zionist terrorism, claiming that it was factually incorrect. My edit explained that Israeli law does not classify Jewish Israelis who commit terrorist acts as terrorists, nor any victims of Jewish Israeli-acts of terror as victims of terrorism. You think and claim that this is factually incorrect because Ariel Sharon condemned the particular act in question as a "terrorist" act. Please read the following BBC article to learn why you do not seem to understand the difference between national law and political statements: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4198754.stm - I look forward to seeing you restore my edits very quickly. And start getting your "facts" right. 62.25.106.20918:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 62, could you tell us how much of the material you recently added to Neoplatonism is copyrighted text by so-and-so published by Routledge, and how much is your own work? I think there's no problem using a direct quotation if it's short, properly cited, and necessary – and it must be set off with quotation marks! (inverted commas) Best, QuartierLatin1968El bien mas preciado es la libertad03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Epsilon. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Unfortunately you can see that there is a mixture of comments here, mainly because this IP address is covered by a number of people under Energis, which is a British Government-department contractor.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User:Mjk2357, 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. Lo2u13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This subject has nothing to do with simple veneration or worship of the dead (as opposed to accusations of glorification of death as something positive in itself). Please don't add irrelevant material to this article.... AnonMoos15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Wayne Rooney (diff) 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. // Tawkerbot415:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Racism
Your family on this link below? Whites are all monsters? You can live with these people, if you want. Just let me live with the people I prefer. That's fair isn't it?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/wanted.html
Thank you for your edit to this article. Your changes have been reverted for two reasons: one, per the Wikipedia Manual of style, only country of origin and/or citizenship should go in the lead paragraph; two, to refer to Ms. Lohan as Irish-American without also mentioning Italian-American is inaccurate. Please feel free to write me if you have any questions. RadioKirk (u|t|c)13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Mr. T (diff) 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. // AntiVandalBot14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have against describing the band as being Irish? Please discuss in talk before making any more of these edits. Thanks. --Guinnog12:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I am against is countless contributors who insist that a band made up of two Irish and two Brits must always be referred to using the phrase "Irish band U2" but are constantly trying to find ways not to say "British" in The Edge and Clayton's articles. Please explain why, in an article about a musician, you MUST say that his band is Irish. It's irrelevant - the fact is stated in the U2 article. You have inconsistent standards. Leave your politics at the door. 195.92.40.4912:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS If of a person you are not allowed to say (paraphrasing) "British born in Britain" why are you allowed to say of U2 "Irish formed in Ireland"? Is there a minimum quota for the term?
Irrespective of the members nationality, the band (singular entity) is Irish. It's all been said before (it wouldn't surprise me if you were involved under another name). Aren't there better things to do? --Merbabu13:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point completely. There are contributors here - including with accounts - who insist that The Edge and Clayton should not be described as British yet the band must be described as Irish. So by this logic one should not refer to the nationality of an individual, but must do so for a group of individuals (without even going into the 50/50 issue). Let's hear your defence of that - politics masquerading as policy. I'm happy for U2 to be constantly and forevermore referred to as "Irish group U2" (where it is actually relevant) if others will allow two men born in Britain, with UK passports and no dual nationality to be referred to specifically as British (dirty word for some of you, I know) in their biographical entries. Can't have it both ways. Just remember who is the one asking for consistency here. 195.92.40.4914:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it’s been implied a few times now that this some sort of political game. Being neither Irish or British, personally, I really couldn’t care less, I just want to see hard non-debatable facts, rather than commentary on which country can claim him - and I suggest that this is the case for most editors. Is the pushing of the term “British” over “Irish” anymore political? Dropping both terms and sticking to the facts is what I suggest. Also, I suggest people immediately stop insisting they know more about other editors’ own motivations and start assuming good faith.
As for the actual topic at hand, to get the most accurate statements, the questions of nationality of a person, and the “nationality” of a band must be separated, even if that person is a member of the band. Your claim that is inconsistency is irrelevant, actually even to be expected. ie, one doesn’t judge oranges and apples in the same way. Sure, bricks make up a house and have an influence on the nature of the house, but one judges brick’s and a house separately and by different criteria. Thus:
The Band as a singular entity: formed in Ireland, remains based in Ireland, as does is its management, is described by the members of the band themselves as a Irish band.
Edge. I think people are disagreeing on notions of nationality and identity. There is the official but often meaningless notion of what one’s passport says (unless you are at the immigration counter in the airport). Then there is the more significant notion of one’s identity. For most people, what is in their passport and their identity is the same thing. He spent 1 year (which I doubt he remembers) living in the UK, not of his own choosing. Has since lived 44 out of his 45 years in Ireland – which experience do you think has shaped him more? He’s spent 25 years (or more) at an age when he can choose where he wants to live – it’s Ireland. His family live there including children, he conducts his live largely from Ireland. Apart from U2-related activity, how much time does he spend in the UK? If, hypothetically, he walked into whatever govt department he needs to, and changes his citizenship and passport to Irish, has anything actually changed for him, apart from the colour of his passport? He is still the same person. What is written on a piece of paper, is not as significant to these characteristics of his identity.
Despite all that, I am not proposing that the article states he is Irish (even though it would be a better choice than he is British if one had to be chosen). I simply think that the article should list the facts (birth place, chosen place of residence, etc) as the article currently does, rather than try and "claim" him as one or the other.--Merbabu01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re your second tiret, I find it astounding that you place your own uninformed and speculative opinions of a stranger's feelings above concrete facts such as place of birth; lineage; heritage; citizenship. You are editing on the basis of your assumptions. I could easily argue that his (and Clayton's) not giving up their UK passport and citizenship is an indication that they are proud to be, and wish to remain, British! Yes, you make reasonable points in general about notions of nationality and identity, but in this specific case unless these points are based on your knowledge of The Edge's personal beliefs then you are basing an encyclopeadic biographical entry on pure guesswork, and nothing more. Doesn't that bode well for accuracy.... 86.17.246.2912:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS My stepfather was born in Dublin to Irish parents. He was brought up in Britain from the age of 11. He served in the Royal Navy, fought in the Falklands, then worked for Royal Mail for 20 years. He is a member of the British Legion. Guess what ? He says he is Irish, 100%. Are you going to tell him "NO! You are BRITISH!". Who are you to tell him he is wrong and abandon where and what he comes from simply because he resides elsewhere? This isn't France.... 86.17.246.2912:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is a tiret? is it similar to a tirade? I think yours is more a tirade with all your exclamation marks - mine was long but calm. Your stepfather's example if anything only proves my point. Ie, you correctly point out that it is up to the person. All of this is still entirely irrelevant because what is in the article is undisputable (ie, born in UK, raised in Ireland, has UK passport). All disputed info is based on our assumptions and interpretations (ie, like your stepfather's example) as been removed from the article, so i really don't know what your problem is. To say is either Irish or British needs more than what his passport says and to say either is based on assumption. So unless anyone can find WP:RS that categorically says he identifies as being ether British or Irish then i suggest issue is closed. Article correctly states undisputable facts only. thanks --Merbabu01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howick Falls
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, puerile edits, such as those you made to Howick Falls, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing. Please consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Beve13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To whomever knows about the School Board for London
I've examined official papers produced by the Board and by the government setting it up and come across both 'London School Board' and 'School Board for London' being referred to as its official name. Is there a definitive answer? Fys. Tafysaym. 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to RBX, 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. codetiger10:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You spend an awful lot of time on Wikipedia instead of earning your wages. As a UK taxpayer this bothers me. You know what I'm talking about. Get back to work before I complain to your employer. 86.17.247.13517:57, 13 December 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 Manchester, 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 work of others. Thank you.
For this contribution, and the warnings you have received above, I intend to move to have you blocked for a (possibly indefiniate) period of time. Jhamez8422:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with the page Entropy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Bduke11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swinton and Pendlebury
Hi, this IP address appears to be shared by lots of users. I would welcome any of you to create your own personal account by clicking the "sign-in" link at the top right and follow the instructions (you get better editing features and your own space to edit).
I would welcome the contributor to the Swinton and Pendlebury articles particularly to create an account, as these contributions have prooved to be excellent. Hope that helps, Jhamez8411:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, feel free to come back, but please make useful contributions instead, and refrain from vandalising or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me10:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history is just as valid of a place to show support as Incidents page. Before you start arguing you point, how is it exactly that you came across this article and decided to look at the history and the surrounding arguments? In my experience, anonymous IP don't usually peruse histories and diffs and know about policy. John Reaves(talk)15:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to argue for the change. My "compromise" was reverted by myself back to the anoymous IPs version. Frankly, your opinion of me makes no difference to the argument (or "wouldn't", rather, seeing as you have no argument), nor does it matter to me. You could avoid this "two IP" issue by creating an account because, as of know, you don't have a very respectable history. John Reaves(talk)15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you haven't see your own history. There's no reason to lie and make things up about my history, so go ahead and stop. As far "wikirules" go, perhaps you should read WP:SOCK because you are a sockpuppet of 86.17.247.135.John Reaves(talk)16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Regards, Navoubanter13:45, 26 January 2007 (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 are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. janejellyroll09:32, 19 April 2007 (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.
Your recent edit to Adrian Littlejohn (diff) 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. // MartinBot13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Chiefrocka (diff) 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. // MartinBot18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Criticisms of Star Trek. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ridernyc12:03, 29 June 2007 (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.
discuss it on the talk page do not just edit out large sections of articles because you disagree with them.
copying this here this also on my talk page. Really register for an account if you want to edit. Talking acrossed multiple IPs is very conter productiveRidernyc12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply to you hear since you are changing IP's constantly. You removed large portions of the page. Your stated reason was dubious at best, beyond that you removed sectiona that had nothing to do with your stated reason. You stated you weree removing information from one source that you diagreed with but you deleted multiple source and citations. Also if you are going to be doing major edits you really should create an account. Your edit really should have been discussed on the articles talk page Ridernyc 12:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Fearne Cotton. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 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. ShoesssSTalk15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Kirsten Costas (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 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 Kirsten Costas, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Krawi (de)talk11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Legality of the Iraq War. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. JCO31213:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Chocobo's Dungeon: Toki-Wasure no Meikyuu, 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: Chocobo's Dungeon: Toki-Wasure no Meikyuu was changed by 62.25.106.209(c)(t) replacing entire content with something else on 2007-11-16T16:56:12+00:00 . Thank you. -- ClueBot (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.
Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Christopher Byrne. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automaticallyreverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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: Christopher Byrne was changed by 62.25.106.209(u)(t) replacing entire content with something else on 2008-02-07T14:46:30+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Hugh Laurie, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automaticallyreverted. 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 vandalism: Hugh Laurie was changed by 62.25.106.209(u)(t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-02-07T14:55:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy due to persistent vandalism originating from your proxy server or network. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Waggers (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Resonance FM do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://glassshrimp.wordpress.com/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.[reply]
April 2008
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to GLASSsHRIMP. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://www.glassshrimp.wordpress.com/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
Dear 62.25.106.209,
Some of your edits on the page
July 25 have been undone by PseudoBot, a robot built to keep the date pages tidy. The problems are:
The person you added doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page.
If the page exists, check that you've spelled and capitalized the name the same way as the article, and try again. If it doesn't yet exist, read this page carefully before creating it. In particular, you shouldn't create a page about yourself or anyone you know personally.
If this bot has got it wrong (as can unfortunately happen), please accept its author's apologies, and (if you would like) leave a message on this talk page with the details, so it can be improved. PseudoBot (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Relativism, 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. LAAFan15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Regards, Navou banter 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Devon Aoki. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. C777 10:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Sutton Grammar School, you will be blocked from editing. JSpung 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To edit, please log in.
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
