User talk:ER MD

I signed in on my new IP address. Of course I will have a new one tomorrow. :) ER MD 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Note the difference in the IP addresses.[reply]

MY TALK PAGE POLICY

I respond to all comments. Afterwards, I delete these entries in a few days. I do not like clutter and I think keeping unimportant information is a waste of space. There is very little interesting content in a user's talk page. Reviewing a person's talk page is, therefore, a fruitless venture. I eventaully delete all entries and keep a clean page. This is my personal preference and it is supported by wiki policy (see [user talk page]). Some people claim that the talk page is required to see a block log, but all editors have access to see how many times a person has been blocked. I find keeping unimportant information is a worthless endeavor. Thank you. ER MD 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breath

I knew you were going to bring that up, so allow me to explain: warning places accidently or without merit may be taken out-warnings put there for a reason are not supposed to be removed, ever. If you continue, you will be blocked again. The warnings you put on my page had not reason to be there. I can contribute without a username and it's obviously not against policy. And the 3RR rule doesn't apply when dealing with vandalism, which your removing of warnings constitues as. So calm down and stop removing warnings. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:22 (UTC)

And again, the inital warnings for "stopping" were invalid so removing them as according to what you are saying is valid, so i don't think you understand the initial reasons. Thank you. 162.119.232.101 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, they were not. They were valid and should stay here. This is the last time I'm going to tell you. Stop removing warnings from your talk page. --69.145.123.171 00:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user talk page policy

Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you can create an archive and move the comments there.

Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose.

I recognize that vandalism warnings need to stay if they are valid. If you look at my edits in the past, you will see that I have operated in good faith and developed a few articles. Given that this is the case, why not go directly to [dispute resolution] on the claim of vandalism. I think I will be vindicated. ER MD 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a warning for incivility. This was a warning for personal attacks. This was for personal attacks. This was a warning for personal attacks. This was for user attacks. This and this were for userpage vandalism. This was a friendly reminder for blanking pages. Don't play dumb. You know what you've been doing and you are not allowed to remove messages. --69.145.123.171 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the two warnings I put up were for blanking content. You did it here and then after it was reverted, you did it again a few minutes later [1]. You cannot simply blank content you disagree with. Not in articles and not on your talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting retarded. I had a few warnings all in relationship to Nrcprm2026. You must have no life. Why don't you waste more time on this issue. I will reboot my router, get a new IP address and start up a new profile. ER MD 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I warned you. And you know that doesn't reset your IP, right? --69.145.123.171 06:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My IP with Verizon is variable. All I do is turn it off, disconnect for a few hours, and then reconnect. The addresses are given as people go on and off the grid. But I appreciate your warnings, and only can surmise that talking with you is a complete waste of time. But for some reason you enjoy it. ER MD 07:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you have two IPs, right? One is assigned to you by you ISP, in this case Verizon. The other is with your computer forever. Good luck escaping that. --69.145.123.171 07:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of his MAC Address, which is removed before any packet leaves his LAN (and can be changed with a registry hack, but there's no reason to do it unless you're "hackzorzing" a wireless network). Also, he has a local IP address, but that can change depending if his router is setup to remember his local IP. The local IP doesn't matter at all though. Anyway, we have plenty of anons harassing us every minute. Another one doesn't matter and is really a non-issue. --mboverload @ 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, here I am with a new IP already...(see edits). No wonder I had so much difficulty talking with 69.145.123.171. The guy does not know what he is talking about. Him and Irish Guy are complete retards... with the continued reverts of the talk page. To what end? Do people think about what they are doing or saying before they do or say it? I can only presume that these are the people who do it the way they are told to do it. The ones that can't think for themselves. I guess I have to give up my nice login and go for something a little more anonymous.... ER MD 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying

A few days ago I asked you to contact me privately. You removed that request from this page several times, writing that my request was "bogus," "dumb," and/or merely an attempt to get your email address. I didn't and don't consider my request to be lacking in sincerity or intelligence, and I don't have any need or desire to know what your email address was or is.

It might seem that you were using the opportunity to remove my edits as a cover to also remove some other more grave ones. Of course, WP:AGF, I know this couldn't be the case...

Regardless, my reason for trying to contact you was to ask you whether or not you were aware of any policies your employer may have with regard to Wikipedia. My own past experience has lead me to be more cognizant of how others might view my Wikipedia editing, especially in light of my position and/or employer. I wanted to try to make sure you didn't have to deal with the same situation I did, if, indeed, you were in the same situation I was in. At this point, given your (lack of/poor) response, I now no longer care. So best of luck. Justen Deal 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]