Jump to content

User talk:207.151.38.178

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.151.38.178 (talk) at 02:55, 25 July 2012 (→July 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 2006

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 if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Rory096 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY. 19:04, 29 April 2006(UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. 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. Tarret 19:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Daniel5127: Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 19:12 UTC

May 2006

Your recent edit to Armenia was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from User:Unisouth. 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. 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. Zpb52 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unwanted edits to other users' user pages without their permission. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thanks. RexNL 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User_talk:Evilphoenix: This is your last warning. The next time you blank a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (P.S. Dude, everything can be reverted, it's not like it disappears once you press delete. So unless you really just want to get blocked or banned, it's not worth it.) Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Daniel5127, 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. Fabricationary 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Vsmith 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank my own page? Daniel5127, 05:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2006

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from User:Bastique. 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. 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. DakPowers (Talk) 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages as you did to User talk:Tony Sidaway. It is considered vandalism. Thanks, Metros232 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you blank a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dakota ~ 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a week. Please don't blank any more pages when the block expires. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

July 2006

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. 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. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 22:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

Regarding edits made during August 26 2006 (UTC) to User:Carnildo, please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. 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. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. 1568 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

Leave my user page alone. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Polish legislative election, 1947 (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. // AntiVandalBot 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Thank you for experimenting with the page Cranberry 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. 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. Tarret 20:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007

Please read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gwernol 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Jacob Peters for a period of forty-eight hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this for evidence. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Regarding edits made to Wisconsin Badgers, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 207.151.38.178! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Homer, you will be blocked from editing. Xiahou 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Apocrypha, you will be blocked from editing. Xiahou 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Crucifixion, you will be blocked from editing. Lima 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Thank you for experimenting with the page Gun politics in Canada 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. Owen× ☎ 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Gun politics in Canada (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. // MartinBot 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Gun politics in Canada, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Owen× ☎ 02:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked quite a while from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Fire Star 火星 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Beverly Hills, California‎, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for another month. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.  Kukini háblame aquí 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

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 BlackBerry Storm, 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: BlackBerry Storm was changed by 207.151.38.178 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-05-23T17:27:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. LittleMountain5 23:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Symbiosis has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Symbiosis. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia pages by removing sourced data and pushing POV. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Robert Sheehan has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to The Horrors constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Alanis Morissette, 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. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ClovisPt (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure what you're talking about; this is a public computer, but if you're referring to contructive criticism on the front page regarding Mr Wales' improper request for monetary assistance, I object. We all need criticism, especially when we don't like hearing it. I just thought he ought to know — and I see he's properly changed his tact, which I take credit for by the way, and is now very near to meeting his obligations, ahem — the manner in which he was asking for monitary contributions wouldn't facilitate a very good response. I know selling, and I see these sorts of mistakes all the time; and I know its hard to take, but you guys have got to put yourself into the shoes of those whom you're asking money from, and THAT's what it sounded like. Like you are trying to bum money off of people! (I seriously don't think anyone came up with more than a red face from embarrassment or possibly a hurt feeling or two). Ask Mr Wales himself, he'll tell you the same: Some of my best ideas come from a shouting/grouchy coach; it's just when the coach stops yelling at you, that's when you need to worry. But if you guys have a lot of problems from this IP, why don't you just require login instead; it's just us "good guys" can't stay anonymous if you do that. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

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).

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

Request reason:

O.K. I was a little confused because I see a lot of similar "suggestions" about the Front Page "Schpeel" that I criticised; you're just saying that there has been a lot of vandalism coming from this IP address, granted. There's a lot of Bozos, and I have absolutely no control over the things that they say; I am NOT an administrator. I'll just use another computer at the other places — crossing fingers — that I won't be followed as I usually am. So to answer your request: 1) Although I myself do certainly promise never to violate any Wikipedia rules or regulations, I CANNOT guarantee some unknown people may come in and damage or disrupt Wikipedia at this particular IP address: 2) I can never tell what these other people have or may do at this particular IP address, so I cannot see what they all have collectively been blocked for, or even what the last straw was that set the administrators' off: 3) I myself cannot see any damage in anything I have said by criticising the Front Page "Schpeel", which I see many have criticised in a similar fashion without being blocked — I cannot, however, speak for others who use this same IP address, and know not what damage they have done: 4) My contributions, although at times "revealing" as I live right here in Hollywood, and am related to many of these "celebrities", are always useful, but may cause a tender so-and-so to make a "special request" once in a while to the administrator of THIS page to "stop that guy"; I again can say nothing of those who have come onto this IP for the express purpose of vandalism: 5) I do apologize; I've NEVER been blocked before, but I can only speak for myself: 5a) I think that I should add at this time — in as far as the "tender" celebrity pages are concerned — that it is a violation of Wikipedia's own policies to cite "Hype" as a fact that just simply may have come from a "trashy" magazine, or in many cases, a "trashy" book (we get a lot of "trash" books out here). I find too many cases where there are reversions and the like without so much as a review of the so-called "source" as long as the "source" was published by anything above a paperback. "Contributions" — as you refer to them here at Wikipedia — should ALWAYS include factual information about a subject; NOT subject to censure unless it is slanderous or libelous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not hype, and I do STRONGELY suspect that Wikipedia is currently falling into a trap by not only accepting hype as fact, but taking everything that the "hype poster" has to say as gospel INCLUDING requests for blocking. So please from your end: carefully consider the REQUESTS themselves, especially ones that start out with: "oh stop"; or: "just stop." We've come to find out here in Hollywood that such individuals are continuingly vexating not only our police departments, but have as well "infected" the Internet itself with wild and false allegations — sometimes including photos — about people they have no knowledge.

Decline reason:

There has been a lot of crap from this IP. Unfortunately, that's quite common with shared IP addresses and the only method we have to deal with it is to block the IP which, unfortunately, blocks all editors, good faith and bad, from editing without logging in. If you have an account, you should be able to log into it from this IP and edit uninterrupted or you an create one from another computer (or request one). I humbly apologise for the inconvenience, but I hope you understand that this is the only way we have of dealing with your less mature colleagues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 30 December 2010 (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.

Just register an account and always log in. Problems solved. There are lots of disadvantages to using unregistered IPs here, and no disadvantages to using a registered username. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Personal attacks are not tolerated by Wikipedia. Also, making conspiracy theory claims without reliable sources, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dave Dial (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2011 (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're right, I didn't make that edit; but I have noticed that your so-called encyclopedia has a very serious problem of getting both sides to a story in general and simply presumes in many cases (especially if the person or thing involved has already been "famoused") the credibility of the one side.
May I share with you such things but put to question the entire usage of your page in general as an unbiased source, and I currently am active with influential persons who eventially will have something done about this.
Please be careful; you suddenly have not somehow come out from under the eye of scrutinty because of so many people who visit your page. But to feel so tends to cause one to wonder exactly what sort of financial "deals" you have been making.
You speak of something being "verifiable," but "no-one" is sure where all your money comes from.
You should really think about that a lot; especially in light of the fact you keep making so many threats.
207.151.38.178 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to the last ...
Please don't delete comments like this either; I am keeping a record of them as are others.
207.151.38.178 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent future confusion over whether you made an edit you should get your own account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for other benefits and to actually do so.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop putting fake population figures in various articles; if you continue to do so, you will be blocked, without further warning. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

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 Talk:Thor (film), 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. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:16, 31 March 2012 (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.

July 2012

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for persistent vandalism, and ignoring five and a half years of repeated warnings and 10 past blocks, the most recent violation being these edits to Talk:List of recurring South Park characters. 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 useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nightscream (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is simply a personal ATTACK! How is it that an opinion on a talk page, that is based upon personal knowledge of facts surrounding a situation, constitutes some kind of vandalism. You know, in our country we have a freedom of the press and even YES, if one has something to say about our leader. My opinion on the talk page was intended to inspire those who edit on the readable page to be aware of what is truly going on in American politics, ie: the election process is a sham, and has been so for a very long time. When one edits the main page, he should be aware that Southpark and the Southpark people have deep connections with American politics; they're not just some kind of cartoon show. (If you had even bought one Southpark Season CD package, you guys would have known this as in the extra content such things become more obvious). The business about Kevin Smith isn't in reference to any Kevin Smith the producer; he's someone else I personally know, but obviously he doesn't at all look like Kevin Smith the producer who has black hair and not the blond hair as does the character depicted in the show. Further: I feel that this dude who blocked us/me is simply reacting as an immature FAN of either Kevin Smith or Barak Obama or both, and arbitrarily and capriciously BLOCKED us/me like a little two-year old brat without any realization at all that his decision was purely emotional. Further: I feel you not only should unblock me, but place him on warning, if not permanent removal for abuse of the blocking priviledge. (In other words: I'm accussing someone of abusing the blocking priviledge; thank you). Oh, and one more thing: HUMOR, as is this page's theme, shouldn't at ALL be considered valdalism, but REVERSE-VANDALISM by way of false allegation IS! Wikipedia seriously needs to look into all similar cases of REVERSE-VANDALISM. Again: thank-you. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

That's a "reason"????
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.151.38.178&oldid=504051409"