Jump to content

User talk:66.177.73.86

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.177.73.86 (talk) at 23:05, 29 May 2010 (Undid revision 364930680 by AnmaFinotera (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it.


Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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.Gatemansgc (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was all I wanted. Don't mistake me for a vandal as, like I said, I've been a regular contributor for years.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I used a level 1 template. If i was a more experienced recent changes patroller, I'd have probably found a more approprate template... Now that I looked closer, that was more using talk pages as a forum, which would be subst:uw-chat1Gatemansgc (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always found those "using talk pages as forums" rules to be ridiculous. Why can't we use our own personal talk pages as forums? I see everyone discussing frivolous nonsense on their talk pages (include admins) anyways, so this rule is rather pointless. Still, my favorite "Wikipedia moment" was when I got banned for reverting vandalism. Yes, you heard me correctly. A registered user vandalized a page, and I reverted it. However, since I'm anonymous, people just assume I'm a vandal and revert all my edits. They not only reverted my reverting multiple times, but actually banned me for reverting vandalism. Those dumbass admins have never failed to ruin everything Wikipedia has to offer.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between using your own talk page as a forum and using an article talk page as a forum (which you were doing).
Seriously? That's ridiculous! Was the registered user doing obvious vandalism, like BLP violations or something like that? Gatemansgc (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user was changing a quote in an article. The real quote was "Get that shit off the air!" This user changed the word "shit" to "heck", despite the fact that "Get that heck off the air" is NOT what Kerry Packer said, and it doesn't even make any sense. When I changed it back to the real quote, I was reverted numerous times and banned. I even used real evidence (and the Australia's Naughtiest Home Videos article) to back up my claims, but they simply ignored me. In addition, they completely removed the quote from both articles. Idiots.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You probably got flagged by all the anti-vandalism things because you were re-adding language to an article, despite it belonging there, since Wikipedia is not censored. The editors that reverted you were probably paying more attention to their edit counts than the actual content. Seriously, a proven quote from another article (which is there today) should have been enough... Well, Wikipedia will never be perfect... Gatemansgc (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what originally happened (a bot reverted me). Then a bunch of idiot "vandal fighters" started ganging up on me. To be honest, I don't think there's a single admin that I like.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes total sense. Usually, once a bot reverts an IP, everyone who sees that the person is re-adding something reverted by a bot assumes they are putting back vandalism. Again, it doesn't help that the vandal fighters are fighting for the edit, trying to do it as fast as possible, and the more edits against you, the worse it got... And there's tons of admins on Wikipedia, you'll find one you like eventually. Gatemansgc (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, it seems like most people don't even check what they're reverting. They don't even care what they're reverting. These "vandal fighters" are just racing against each other to make as many edits as humanly possible. Do these people ever sleep? Sometimes I wonder if they're not super-intelligent computers disguised as humans. And it seems like, once a user gets crowned "admin", they become a pretentious, power-crazed, self-important douche. Even the nicest folks are corrupted when they become an admin. It's sad, really.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I sometimes wonder if they sleep, too... But at least most of the vandal fighters check what they did after reverting. Plenty of times you'll see them undoing their own edit. Not always, but mostly. And power has always corrupted... Gatemansgc (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - it's basic human nature. Give someone power - especially someone who doesn't know how to use it - and they're pretty much guaranteed to use it for their own selfish needs.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's no wonder there's so many countries led by dictators... They taste power and can't let it go. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's absolutely crucial that the "head of state"'s power be limited - even if he doesn't like it. They should never have "be-all/end-all" power over everything.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting New Account

There are many benefits to registering an account, and really no drawbacks. You can still use an anonymous username of your choosing. Please see WP:WHY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had an account a few years ago. Under that account, I made a complete fool out of myself and eventually got permanently banned for being an obnoxious idiot. Looking back, it's downright embarrassing. I've matured a lot since then. I no longer act like an obnoxious idiot and get myself banned. But, ever since I had that account, I've been reluctant to create another account. I'll have to "start all over again", and nobody will even know who I am. They won't know about the infinite contributions I made while I was anonymous.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best that people don't know your old contributions. You'll have a fresh start, and all you have to do is start out with tons of highly positive contributions, like most of what you were doing before, and you'll be a respected editor. It's not the edit count that counts. Gatemansgc (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. But it seems like all people ever focus on is their edit counts. *sigh*--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, be different. Just edit constructively and don't give a damn about edit counts. The edits will speak for themselves. The only time edit count really counts is the first 10 to becoming autoconfirmed. Gatemansgc (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda hard to explain, but I want people to know that I'm not a "n00b". I've been here longer than some admins! I think I started editing when I was... what... 10? I want everyone to know that I've been here for years, and that only the account is new. In addition, there's a charming sort of "mystery" about being anonymous.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite a while. And started when 10? That's amazing... When I was 10, Wikipedia wasn't even started yet... But once you've established yourself as a great editor, you can link back to your old account or something like that, since someone would only accuse o sockpuppetry if you were vandalizing. for the last part, you could choose a username so boring and generic you'd seem anonymous. XD Gatemansgc (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I could tell everyone that I've been editing since I was 10, but linking to my old account would take a lot of guts. I can't even stand to look at my edits from that old account. It just makes me cringe. It's too embarrassing for me to think about. That was when I was 11. I'm 14 now. But nobody has to know that. ^_~ Hey, maybe I could be the youngest admin some day... Not only will I be the youngest admin, but I'll be the only admin who isn't a power-crazed Wiki-Nazi. Of course, they'll probably ban me for not being a power-crazed Wiki-Nazi, but...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That bad, eh? XP Well, shooting to be the youngest admin would be a great goal! Gives you something to work towards, and would definitely be very interesting. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was pretty awful. I was so unbelievably childish back then. I (more than) once posted a made-up rap song about Willy on Wheels and punching another user in the face, for example. And I had sockpuppets as well. I can't believe I actually expected people to believe the whole "it was a different person" schtick. It could not have been any more obvious. To be honest, I have vandalized under my anonymous IP addresses. Just for the hell of it, I guess. When you're anonymous, it can be kinda hard to resist at times. But, of course, I wouldn't do that if I had an account. And my age would probably get in the way of me becoming an admin.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User:Gatemansgc. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Andrea105 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He literally asked me to vandalize his page. Check his talk page, idiot. XD--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask. Gatemansgc (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

there is a conversation regarding you at ANI with regards to the legal threat you made to an editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_on_users_talk_page Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be a little more straightforward: You MUST remove and recant your legal threat or you will be blocked. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more straightforward, you are blocked for the next 72 hours for disruptive behaviour. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that back, my apologies. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I saw the response at AN/I a little bit ago and wanted to stop in and offer my apologies for over reacting. It was not my intention to start trouble with you but more to follow the spirit of the guidelines regarding legal threats. I certainly should have read more into the context of what you were saying and not just the words. One of the harder parts of reverting vandalism is differentiating between good faith edits, deliberate vandalism and threatening or combative behavior. Now I am not so full of myself that I cannot admit when I am wrong. Indeed I spend quite a bit more time apologizing for mistakes and misunderstanding, than I do contributing to articles I enjoy working on. But I hope you can understand the position I was in and understand that it was not even remotely personal. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell the powers that be to stop blocking me from accessing Wikipedia.org? >_>--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not currently blocked. Be good, and you won't get blocked again.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was my bad. You were blocked for about 3 minutes, which is short but still really annoying. Again, my apologies for that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was talking about. I didn't even know I was blocked, because I couldn't access the English Wikipedia.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd... As far as I know, there are no mechanisms in place to prevent access. That leads me to think that it is not a block, but some sort of bug or malfunction you're experiencing. Could you well me what happened when you tried to access the site, so I can see if I can file a bugreport or something? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first times I got blocked, it showed up as "Page Not Found", and then some technobabble stuff below it. The second times I got blocked, it just showed up as a blank page with "Does Not Exist", or something like that.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... That's very wierd... Blocking editing theoretically has no effect on viewing Wikipedia.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Page Not Found is very weird. When that happened, did you have issues reaching other sites too? About the technobabble error, I really need the technobabble to say something usefull about it. I can say one thing with certainty: This has nothing to do with blocking or banning you or anything. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Blocked again

For this comment on ANI about trolls vandals etc. We mean WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked once more

Blocked 72 hours for Personal attacks ([1]). This is your final warning. NW (Talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "final warning"? So... what happens if I violate this "final warning"? Are you going to come to my house and shoot me?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be against wikipedia policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought so, but I was just making sure.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it, threats of violence are against the rules, but I'm not so sure about actual violence. It's a fine line of technicalitiness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh... I better make sure all the doors are locked.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were Christmas eve instead of Thanksgiving eve, I could give you the following sound advice from Weird Al Yankovic's "Christmas at Ground Zero":
You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop
Or Jack Frost on your windowsill
But if someone's climbin' down your chimney
You'd better load your gun and shoot to kill
←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite enough from you. I'm revoking your access to edit your own talk page for the remainder of the block. MuZemike 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


December 2009

Please do not use talk pages such as WP:ANI for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Your additions to WP:ANI are not constructive. Don't just chime in with jokes, observations, etc. that are not relevant to the discussion at hand. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:04, 9 December 2009 (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.
Blech. Template was not really what I was going for, but you get the idea. Don't just add unconstructive nonsense to WP:ANI. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But... can I add unconstructive nonsense if the whole discussion is unconstructive nonsense?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, just because everyone else is jumping off a cliff doesn't mean you should too. Did your mother not inform you of this as a child? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki activity leading to blocks

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "Well, users can be blocked for their behavior on other websites" - I think the only times this happens is when the off-wiki behavior intertwines with on-wiki behavior, such as harrassing a person by his wikipedia handle or making reference to his Wikipedia account, or when the Arbitration Committee is involved.

Well, I distinctly remember reading about users being blocked for their behavior on other websites. In fact, there was an admin (an admin I HATED) who got blocked for something he did on another website.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider registering. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruption on the administrators' noticeboard. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. MuZemike 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned and have been blocked several times about your conduct at WP:ANI. Furthermore, [2] and [3] are completely unacceptable. MuZemike 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely unacceptable"? You completely misunderstood my intentions. With [4], I was trying to comfort the editor by joking with him about how ridiculous his stalker was acting. With [5], I was simply asking a question that I felt had significant importance to the issue at hand.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

66.177.73.86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, I did that was "disruptive"?

Decline reason:

{{subst:In reviewing your posts for the last 48 hours it is apparent to me that you are an experienced editor. As such, you should obviously be aware of what constitutes good editing practices. Your recent edits have been nothing short of disruptive; goading others, and outright trolling. If you honestly wanted to contribute in a constructive manner, you would not be inserting your edits in threads in the provocative manner in which you have. I decline your request for unblock. Please take some time to rethink your approach to editing here, and return with a more positive and productive effort.}} — Ched :  ?  03:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

66.177.73.86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see my response on the bottom of the page. You completely misunderstood my intentions. With [6], I was trying to comfort the editor by joking with him about how ridiculous his stalker was acting. With [7], I was simply asking a question that I felt had significant importance to the issue at hand.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

66.177.73.86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alright, I understand how some of my comments could be misconstrued as insults. It was never my intent to be obnoxious or insulting, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm sorry for any disruption I may have caused, and will try to be extra-careful about what I say from now on.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 10:02 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Considering your level of disruption and block log, I am surprised it's just 2 weeks. I would have unblocked if this wasn't a re-occuring issue with you. You can make another request after a week, as you continue to make requests over and over which wastes admin resources. NJA (t/c) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I cannot see that your commentary in ANI today has been very helpful either. It's theoretically a place to try and REDUCE drama, not increase it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I am perceived that way. I have no intentions of being insulting or starting drama, but I often say things the wrong way. I apologize.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Xavegoem (sp?) probably didn't delete your post. There is a glitch in the MediaWiki software apparently since the last upgrade that will on occasions, when two persons post at the same time, show both posts in the history, but as if the one that posted a split second (I presume) later deleted the very slightly earlier post. It shouldn't do this - I believe those knowledgeable in these things have filed a report.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did I say "You aren't a human being?"

You implied that I somehow "forgot" you are a real live person because I suggested anonymous provocations aren't helpful in project space. That was a bit extreme. I'm one of the minority of named accounts that actually appreciate IP work in articles. I don't mind them being helpful in project space. But you really can't expect to go around like a bull in a china shop with demands ("EXPLAIN dammit!") and sarcasm ("Actually I'm Jesus Christ") without any reputation to back you up and then act self-righteous when you get the resultant reaction. I'm sorry. Auntie E. 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't mind them..."? There you go again, lessening, demeaning, generalizing, and objectifying IP addresses instead of considering them as individual human beings.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registering

Have you considered doing this since you are very active in a way and should be able to benefit from being registered? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are not the first person on this page to ask that question of this editor, nor even the second, it might be easier to assume the answer to your question being in the affirmative. Weakopedia (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because:

1. I had an account when I was 11, and I made a complete idiot out of myself under that account. Just thinking about makes me cringe. I can't believe I was such an idiot.

2. The Man doesn't want me to be anonymous, but I gots to Fight the Power.

3. My anonymity makes me special and gives me an air of mystery.

4. I've been editing since I was 10, and I've used countless different IP addresses. If I create an account, I'll have to start all over again. People will just assume I'm a n00b, which I'm most certainly not. Nobody will even know who I am.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a good answer. Also, considering when you started editing, I am honored to work with someone who is mature at such a young age. The fact that you're being constructive at AN/I is also a plus. We all make mistakes, but whatever floats your boat is alright with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12chan

Hi. Though 12chan is undoubtably a larger and more noteworthy *chan, it does need a notable 3rd party source(s) to be included in the imageboard list. Once you find this plase feel free to add it back into the list in its numerical position. 121.131.160.140 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ED article has a screenshot of 12chan's Fox News coverage, but...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sennin Buraku has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kLvfNg3fbg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqYXYVqND7Q&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCHgaYXqVA&feature=related. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sennin Buraku. 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. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. 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. Thank you.Template:Do not delete —Farix (t | c) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lemon Angel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (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.
Man, do you ever shut up? God damn.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with Lemon Angel, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:47, 29 May 2010 (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.
Ooooh, I'm scared. A user who isn't even an admin is gonna block me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lemon Angel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 29 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.177.73.86&oldid=364931277"