User talk:129.133.127.244

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note about Brunswick, New York[edit]

Just so you know, it seems that book about Schoharie County by Lintner does exist, though accessibility could be a problem. wadester16 03:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rensselaerswyck[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 129.133.127.244. You have new messages at Wadester16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

October 2009[edit]

Information.svg 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 Ames Department Stores Inc., 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) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Skull and Bones[edit]

Hello, I received your message. I have no ownership of the piece, as you imply, but it gets a lot of vandalism, so I often find myself having to revert that. Your changes were not vandalism, but I did disagree with your moving the introduction of the piece lower down. That said, I should have simply reverted your changes, rather than use my rollback. I'm afraid a touch of the flu clouded my thinking on that one, so my apologies. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

General list of masonic Grand Lodges[edit]

Before you go further in your re-writes... please remember that I am working on the same thing on a user draft page (as I mentioned on the talk page). Unfortunately, we seem to be starting to drifting in opposite directions on what information to include and how to format things. I would hate for us to get into a "I like my version better" argument when both of us have done so much work. So... perhaps we should work together rather than separately? Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the difference, really.129.133.127.244 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

Information.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to General list of masonic Grand Lodges, 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: General list of masonic Grand Lodges was changed by 129.133.127.244 (u) (t) deleting 17306 characters on 2010-07-19T23:33:30+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, when you keep calling this "Facebook" in your edits, it doesn't really make sense for you to call it a personal attack when other people point this out to you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.244 (talkcontribs) 05:48, 24 July 2010

Making personal attacks at Talk:General list of masonic Grand Lodges[edit]

129... I strongly urge you to delete your last comments to Daedalus. Accusing anyone, but especially an administrator, of purposely covering up sockpuppetry is considered a personal attack, and is very likely to get you banned from further editing. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You like working in an environment where you must cower in fear? Whoever this person is is not even presenting the appearance of moderating a dispute. All he did was misstate my original concern and threaten me. Why in the name of anything worthwhile would I fawn over someone like that? This whole process is an absurdity.
If you want to work under the threat of fear, go right ahead. Do what you want.129.133.127.244 (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You have a hard time admitting when you are wrong, don't you?
Sigh... OK... just don't say you were not warned. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Defend this: "Lastly, since your accusations have not been justified with actual evidence besides two editors telling you of the applicable policy, your accusations fall into the territory of personal attacks." Does his statement of the situation sound remotely like what I claimed? Did I claim that two editors were telling me of the applicable policy?

I don't know what you do in life. Maybe you have to lick boots a lot.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not make that claim... but it is very easy to see why Deadalus thought that two editors telling you of an applicable policy... You see, we actually have a policy called WP:NOTFACEBOOK... and when editors tell someone "this is not Facebook", they are usually referring to this policy. Deadalus made a very understandable assumption that both Amatulić and MSJapan were referring to that policy when they were pointing out that "This isn't Facebook". Yes, his assumption was off on that minor fact... but the point he was trying to make to you was valid never the less. His point was that you did not have enough evidence to justify filing an accusation of sockpuppetry, and that unfounded accusations can be considered personal attacks.
You do not have to "lick boots"... but if you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia, you do have to be WP:CIVIL... and your last comment to Deadalus was definitely not civil. Blueboar (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, it certainly was civil. And no, I do not want to be a regular editor on wikipedia. I just HAVE to correct it's worst errors when it affects institutions and organizations I am associated with. But I know of fantastic wikipedia hoaxes that I leave alone, because the fraud articles here are hilarious. And the processes for moderating disputes are ridiculous. Life is too short for this.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. You see, here on wikipedia, civility is a policy. Please refer to WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being 'paid off' or some such, without any evidence, is a personal attack, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia does not follow your standards. It follows it's own, set by discussion, discussion, and more discussion.. Thus, your 'assertion' that the comment was 'civil' does not fly here. Accusing someone of disruptive editing without evidence is a personal attack here, whether you like it or not, and it was by no means civil. I have been investigating sock cases for a very long time here, and I have many successful cases to my name, so instead of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sock or meatpuppet, try and take their words to heart, and admit that you're wrong here. MS and Ama are not sock, or meatpuppets of each other. People say many similar things, and that does not automatically make them sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other.— dαlus Contribs 06:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you are going to continue to engage in disputes here on wikipedia, and are refusing to engage in the dispute resolution process? That's tantamount to saying you are choosing to be a disruptive force here, in order to make a point. Please don't.--Vidkun (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Accusing anyone of being 'paid off' or some such, without any evidence, is a personal attack" - I never made such an accusation, and I expect an apology. "Thus, your 'assertion' that the comment was 'civil' does not fly here." - It was civil, all you have is your word against mine. That has nothing to do with consensus, just your abuse of your status. "Accusing someone of disruptive editing without evidence is a personal attack here" - I made no accuastion of disrputive editing. I saw what looked like possible sock puppetry, and reported it. You again mischaracterize what I posted. This is at least the third time you have done that. Why? "and I have many successful cases to my name" - I don't believe this is about your reputation, is it?129.133.127.244 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Vidkun, why are you imputing threats to me that I did not make? Why???129.133.127.244 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did make something that can be construed as a threat to ignore policy and process for dispute resolution - And the processes for moderating disputes are ridiculous. That's suggesting that you will ignore multiple third party opinions that YOU are being disruptive, and that if you have a dispute with another editor, you will ignore proper procedures for resolving the dispute. If you choose to continue to be involved in disputes with editors, after having been pointed to the dispute resolution process, and given the disdain you have expressed regarding it, it can only be because you do not choose to follow procedure, and you wish to continue to disrupt wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling the process for moderating disputes ridiculous suggests no such thing. Your comment is absurd.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with your inability to admit you were wrong here. There was no sockpupptry, and that's the end of it. The fact of the matter is, it has nothing to do with 'words/promises'. It has to do with evidence, and you have none.— dαlus Contribs 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
And no, my 'word' is not all I have. Go have a read of WP:NPA, I quote: "An unsubstantiated accusation constitutes a personal attack". You accused me of covering up a sock case without any evidence. That is the definition of incivility, as described by our policy on No Personal Attacks.
So instead of continuing this disruptive tirade, why don't you stop with the sockpuppet and abuse accusations when such has never happened at all, and indeed, you have zero evidence it has, and get back to discussing your edits to the article in a civil and collaborative way that doesn't involve bad-faith baseless accusations.— dαlus Contribs 19:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The only tirade here is yours. I made no bad faith baseless accusations. Your conduct has been uncivil, you and your associate have made bad faith accusations. Your hosility to other editors is very clear. The only person dragging this matter out is you. You're writing on my user page. If you weren't an admin, I'd complain of your behavior as hostility and stalking, and personal attacks. But since admins will cover for admins regardless, there is no point for complaint. I am perfectly happy to have the record sit here on this page since anyone can read it and see how poorly you have acted.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an admin. I am an editor who has had several years worth of experience hunting sockpuppets.
Secondly, no, the tirade is not my own, but yours. The fact of the matter is, your case was already declined by an SPI admin clerk as having no evidence to support it's claims. You claimed two people were sockpuppets, just because they used a similar phrase to tell you that wikipedia is not facebook, after you twice called it facebook. That is the very definition of a bad faith accusation, as you were not assuming good faith when you made it, but were assuming bad faith that they were the same person.
I have no 'associate' here. I only came here, because the an admin in the IRC SPI channel noted the disruption you were causing, and I looked into it. The only true thing that interests me on wikipedia is sockpuppets.
But tell me, what specific 'personal attacks' have I made? I haven't said you were a sockpuppet, but I have said your behavior is disruptive, which it is. You are wasting time that could be spend improving this encyclopedia, with baseless accusations. You have yourself also lied here, whether intentional or not. I have never stalked you, your contributions, or anything about you. What I did do, however, is hear about a bad-faith sockpuppet accusation in the en spi channel, and investigate it to see if it really had any validity at all, and as I have already quite clearly explained, it did not.
You can try to construe my behavior as 'poor', but in reality, that's what yours has been. Now you have begun personally attacking me, by making unsubstantiated accusations. You say I've stalked you? Link the diff and prove it. You say I've used personal attacks? Link the diff and cite specifically what was the personal attack. You say I've stalked you. Prove how I've followed you to other pages and made comments regarding you, aside from the single SPI page, and the talk page of the article this is all about.. oh wait. You can't, because I haven't.
As I have said, time, time, and time again, the fact of the matter is that you were meeting opposition to several of your edits at an article talk page; you were a minority. So what did you do? You accused two of them of being the same person, citing a similar statement(that I have told you several times now is standard practice), that you yourself caused to be said, with your own actions of calling wikipedia facebook.
Yes, I am posting to your page, but I'm not the one refusing to drop the sock issue. So stop with the bad faith. Wikipedia requires a collaborative environment, not accusations at every turn of disagreement. Stop acting like you are right; you are clearly wrong in this matter.
If you return to the article, do not accuse those who disagree with you as being sockpuppets again.— dαlus Contribs 03:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you're still trolling. Why are you still attacking me with your baseless accusations? You have not stopped with your deliberate mischaracterizations of my posts from the outset? Why are you trolling me? Why do I have to deal with your barrage of attacks?

"That is the very definition of a bad faith accusation, as you were not assuming good faith when you made it, but were assuming bad faith that they were the same person." That is one of the most irrational statements I can imagine. If your statement was true, then every single report of sock puppetry would be in bad faith. Every single one. You clearly do not understand the concept of bad faith. You should stop "investigating" anything until you know what the terms are that you are using.

That you intrude into disputes and throw around baseless accusations, and don't understand the terms you use is astonishing. You stand as yet another reason why wikipedia is a joke.

You say you are not an admin. Fine. Who cares? You still insert yourself into disputes, aggravate them, antagonize people, beat dead horses, and are rude and untruthful. ---you might as well be an admin, you're obviously qualified.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You made a bad faith sockpuppet accusation because you had no evidence other than that the two editors disagreed with you, and used the same wording in doing so. They did not have similar usernames, there was no precocious edit history, there were no identical edits, no edit warring .. in short, none of the signs of sock puppetry. Your only reason was because you were angry that you were being told you were wrong, your only justifications/evidence is what you listed here. If you can't understand why that is bad faith, you need to request help in learning how to use wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Vidkun, basic English. A bad faith accusation would be one that the person who made the accusation did not actually believe. A good faith accusation is one that the accuser actually believes. I actually believed my accusation ---or actually, not even that, *****I simply asked for someone to look into it***** In either case, it was a good faith accusation. Since you clearly do not understand the difference between 'good faith' and 'bad faith' what those terms are, and how they are used, YOU need to reassess your claims to any credibility in wikipedia.

Why don't you search the term 'good faith', you'll see I am right, and your paragraph above is predicated on not knowing the meaning of the term?

I did not make a bad faith accusation. I was acting in good faith. YOU have been making false accusations against me, saying I am acting in bad faith when I did not. What are you going to do to correct your error? God only knows what havoc you have been creating in wikipedia with your slim grasp of terms. If you can't get the first principle right,... 129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Vidkun has retreated. Just as well.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I looked up various issues regarding good faith accusations - tell me - did you have any signs of sock puppetry? I notice you didn't answer that question when I asked you before. Accusing other editors of being sockpuppets, when you have NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA of the signs of sock puppetry, is by definition, a bad faith accusation - good faith would mean you had valid and articulable points that show reasonable cause to suspect sockpuppetry. If it were a good faith accusation, and not simply "these guys are disagree with me, WAAAAHH!!!! won't someone stop them???!!!!1111!!!" someone would have actually ACTED on your accusation, and run a checkuser. It was declined. In fact, one of the first signs of bad faith in a dispute issue is "That editor is a sock puppet.--Vidkun (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe I may be blind. Can you please specifically show me where I have 'supposedly' personally attacked you?— dαlus Contribs 04:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"It is your fantasy however" - my fantasy? "instead of continuing this disruptive tirade" - tirade? "your concern is not at all legitimate" "baseless accusations remind me" "your disruptive antics of referring to them as sockpuppets" - disruptive antics?

And of course, your whole repeated mischaracterization of my original statements was hostile and inflammatory. For example, my 'accusation' was not baseless. it may not have had a basis which was substantiated in the end, but there's no reason in the world why I should have to endure threats from you because my *good faith* accusation did not prove true. (What threats? you threatened to block me, at least.)

"you will soon be blocked for baseless/unsubstantiated accusations" - And I noticed this, where you seem to present yourself as an admin. Of course, I can tell the difference between a good faith mistake and a bad faith mistake, so I'll let it pass.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I said if you continue to make personal attacks, you will soon be blocked. I never said I would do the blocking, I said personally attacking others is against policy.
Now, are you going to report me, or was that just some failed attempt to intimidate me.
Go on, go ahead and report me. I'm waiting.— dαlus Contribs 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what other people post? Do you read what other people post? Do you read what other people post? Do you read what other people post?129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read what you posted, but 'defending' myself here is pointless. If you have an issue with my behavior, report me. Otherwise that threat is empty, just like all your other arguments accusing people of being sockpuppets.— dαlus Contribs 03:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you didn't have the intelligence to follow a conversation.

1. I wrote this: "And I noticed this, where you seem to present yourself as an admin. Of course, I can tell the difference between a good faith mistake and a bad faith mistake, so I'll let it pass."

2. You wrote this: "Now, are you going to report me, or was that just some failed attempt to intimidate me. Go on, go ahead and report me. I'm waiting."

So, I say I'm going to let your ambiguous statement pass, and then you protest that I won't report you, AND accuse me of trying to intimidate you. ***How the hell can I be trying to intimidate you by saying "so I'll let it pass."

You Don't Even Understand What You're Posting... You're a fool.129.133.127.244 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As many people have said, another nail in the coffin. You've said you were going to report me, so, are you? Or is that just an empty threat. You said before the only thing holding you back from reporting me was that you thought I was an admin. Well, I've told you otherwise, so what's stopping you?— dαlus Contribs 06:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not making points. You are not communicating anything. You are not discussing any issues. You are comntinuing a conflict for its own sake. You are stalking and hostile. Please get off my user page.129.133.127.244 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Educational institution IP address
To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here.

Due to persistent vandalism (see edit log), anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address may be blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by filling out this form. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

Comments: 31 hours for personal attacks over the last few months, culminating with using an edit summary to tell someone to go to hell

Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Democrat Party (phrase). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Loonymonkey (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

I am not engaged in an edit war, in Democrat party (phrase), I am following wikipedia guidelines. I object to the accusation.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. By definition, you very much ARE involved in an edit war (and unilaterally, against consensus, without discussion, which is even more egregious). Please discuss your proposals and reach some consensus before making wholesale changes to the article or you'll find yourself blocked very quickly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war, nor am I violating the three revert rule. You should not make reckless allegations.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to step back and have a different admin review this article. Rjensen has been using the article to prove his opinion in a controversy, not reporting the existence of a controversy. If you cannot see that, then ask someone else.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A different admin speaking here: you are simply wrong. This article is solidly researched and well-sourced, and your changes are in violation of consensus, and un-discussed on the talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article completely violates NPOV and Original Research, and if you can't see that, you should not be an admin.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Give some examples of what you think violates NPOV or Original Research. It could be that you see something wrong with the article that others don't. Creation7689 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Start from the top. What is the subject of the article? The phrase? Or the *controversy* about the phrase? The answer should be the controversy. Wikipedia is not here to prove one side of a controversy is correct. Wikipedia is here to report that there is a controversy. One Editor, (Jensen?) has a theory that Republicans are attacking the Democrat party by calling it the Democrat Party. He's sitting on this article, and has been for some time. Look at the discussion pages. Look at the edit history. He has his theory of the phrase proven with citations. He wants the article to say that there is a secret conservative conspiracy to attack the Democrats by calling them Democrats, and not to have the article neutrally describe that there is a controversy about whether or not this use is even an attack in the first place. You can see in the discussion page some third editor who went all out a few months ago to write a neutral version, even had a test page on his user page, etc., and he just was relentlessly attacked by Jensen and gave up. Wikipedia is not here for Jensen to prove his conspiracy theory. ---The article should read, "some people say it is perjorative, some say it is just casual usage. These people say this, others say that." Balanced, neutral, not with harsh words. Right now he has it saying "The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators". "Hostile"? Can he prove "hostile"? Is this the place for him to prove "hostile"??? NPOV. No original research.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Two things. When I look at the article, I in fact do see one side to the Democratic Party Phrase, which is the negative. I agree that the article should support the positive and the negative of the Democratic Party Phrase. Although it is well researched and well cited, I only see one view. I don't see it as being neutral. Unless im not seeing something.Creation7689 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about the "Democratic Party" or about calling Democrats Democrats; the article is about the use of the nonce-term "Democrat Party" by persons hostile to the Democratic Party and to Democrats. Neither the anonymous 129.* nor Creation seems to grasp that. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But it is not a proven thing, there's huge numbers of people who use the term in ordinary discussion without secretly hating Democrats. The article takes it for granted that a secret conspiracy exists, and that it is doing this deliberately. But that has never been proven. ---The article should be balanced. It should be neutral. "There is a controversy; some people think this, some people do not." Another way I have phrased it, the *controversy about the phrase* is the subject of the article, not the *phrase*. Wikipedia is *NOT* the place for proving or settling disputes.129.133.127.244 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well now I see what Orange Mike is getting at. I can see the article is about the persons hostile to the Democratic part and the Democrats. Is there an article where it supports persons not hostile to the democratic party and democrats? If so they could possibly be merged. Or maybe the article could also be re-written. =/ Creation7689 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike misses the boat because... Let's say the phrase was 'Stinkycrats' --that's an obvious perjorative, so there's no need to discuss whether or not the term is, in the first place, even perjorative. The article in that case would list the term, show when and how it was used, commentators commenting on it, etc. Here, with 'Democrat Party' there is a controversy about whether or not the term is even offensive. (Actually, Safire was a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist nutjob for thinking it was, IMHO.) And there's plenty of cited material put in the article already by people who disagreed with the article's Non-NPOV, Non-No original research claims to begin with, material that shows that Democrat Party is common ordinary usage, and not a perjorative in the first place. (Such as local Democrat Party groups that call themselves the "Democrat Party".) ---Look, I don't give a damn, really, its only Wikipedia; ---but this is one of the first articles I will use to show people how politically biased and conspiracy-nutjobby wikipedia is.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Re: List of Masonic Grand Lodges... Please engage in discussion on the talk page, rather than engaging in a revert war. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from violating the three revert rule, and please pay attention to what damage your reverts cause.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No reason, no warning was given. I have no idea why this happened. This is clearly abuse. Whoever you are Cirt, you have abused your admin status.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, you don't seem to have read the warnings above the block notice. Or rather you certainly read the first one as you replied. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)