User talk:

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


Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

April 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Talk:Tilahun Gessesse worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Fido Dido[edit]

Hi there, I see you're trying to improve the article but phrases like "he's the king of cool" really aren't helping. This isn't a commercial blurb or fictional biography for kids. Mention only things with real world importance and usage. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The God Delusion[edit]

Go to Talk:The God Delusion to discuss your proposed change. Your new version is not an improvement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Richard Dawkins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — raekyt 07:49, 3 September 2012 (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.
It is funny how you call my act edit warring, while you allow yourself to revert an edit by reasons such as "what the heck".-- (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


- Against clear consensus on the talk page, you have tried to add the Shermer trivia 5 times in less than 24 hours now ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) in the Richard Dawkins article. That is clear-cut edit warring, and using different IP's for that is sockpuppetting. That behaviour will get you blocked. - DVdm (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny. The last time I ever editted the article was about 24 hours ago. Since then, I have been talking in talk page to resolve issues. I am not sockpuppeting when I do not pretend to be a different person. Not to mention I was the one who told you the two IPs are the same.-- (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is funny. You will get blocked for edit warring if something like the above happens again. Consider signing up for a username. - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you or have you been using the follwing username and IP's?

If you are user Kazemita1, please note that you are not allowed to edit in logged-off mode. - DVdm (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting edit[edit]

Can you please provide justification for this edit? It appears to be removing a competing product (Anadigics) while at the same adding many Broadcom products.

At first I found this surprising, but after a deeper look, maybe it isn't quite so surprising. Can you please provide a justification for why this isn't a conflict of interest? — Jeremy 09:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

-> Anadigics makes front-end modules (see, not 802.11ac chipsets. The Anadigics AWL9581 is used with BCM4335, so there's no conflict of interest here. If someone wants to create a table of 802.11ac-compliant front-end modules, the Anadigics part could be included there.

Reference errors on 24 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)