User talk:216.164.203.90: Difference between revisions

This is a message to KimvdLinde: "DO NOT MODIFY MY POSTS! Also, I DO NOT want you posting on my talk page!! Got that FUCKER?" 216.164.203.90 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you better read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And consider yourself warned for making of personal attacks! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add WP:OWN to the list. Wikipedia is not MySpace. RadioKirk talk to me 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think WP:CIV would be a good one. Signed, Freddie 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 216.164.203.90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Gray Wolf on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. 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. cholmes75 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah right, it is complete nonsence. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the next time, you get blocked. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not as lomng as you are vandalizing the page with adding nonsense. Copnsider to add some real stuff. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Gray Wolf. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. 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. cholmes75 05:31, 13 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. RadioKirk talk to me 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, but please desist in the repeated modifications to dog breeding articles. These additions have been deemed to be unhelpful. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon your return, may we ask that you please read and become familiar with WP:CITE and WP:RS. The overriding factor with an encyclopedia must be, as stated, ""verifiability, not truth". We hope you will join us as a productive editor to Wikipedia. RadioKirk talk to me 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Someone kept removing my contibution

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Someone kept removing my contibution |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibution |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibution |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Your "contribution" has been removed by another user who has deemed it "utter nonsense". Regardless, Wikipedia policy demands all data include a citation from a reliable source, and your "contribution" cannot be allowed until you can provide such a source. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This block will be lifted if and only if you agree to read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. RadioKirk talk to me 01:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You requested unblock prior to the expiration of the 24-hour period for which you were blocked; it since has expired automatically. Are you telling me you have no intention of learning how to be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia? RadioKirk talk to me 00:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "this block will be lifted" post was made specifically to your request for an early unblock; obviously, since it has expired after being served in full, it no longer applies. I am glad you intend to contribute constructively; reading the pages I linked above will help you better learn Wikipedia policy and help you, and all Wikipedians, get better. Thank you. RadioKirk talk to me 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Gray Wolf. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. 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. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Gray Wolf, 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. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

My kid got ahold of my laptop

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My kid got ahold of my laptop |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My kid got ahold of my laptop |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My kid got ahold of my laptop |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sure, and two days ago, you added EXACTLY the same complete nonsense to the EXACT same article, at EXACT the same place. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, we kind of doubt this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredil Yupigo (talk • contribs)

It's difficult to assume good faith since you and "your kid" have the same editing styles but, giving you the benefit of the doubt, are you willing to install a password to keep "your kid" away from your laptop? RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that within a few seconds of blocking you, "your kid" magically loses control of the laptop and the first thing you do is immediately request an unblock. Instead of lying to us, I suggest you cool off for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Signed, Freddie 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadioKirk, I am putting a password on my laptop right now! I understand if the block must stay, however. Thanks! 216.164.203.90 01:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin says, yes, you'll "cool off" for 24 hours. Meantime, and you must know this if you know anything at all about Wikipedia, there is now a bunch of admins watching you. I'm trying to assume good faith but, if indeed there is something less than honesty going on here, your wisest move would be to move on. RadioKirk talk to me 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is RadioKirk the only one who belives me???

Am I? RadioKirk talk to me 02:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, if the block was incorrect and there really is this young child who got the computer then a 24 hour block is not that big a deal, one can edit in a few hours. The short length of the block combined with the dubiousness of the claim make me reluctant to unblock. JoshuaZ 03:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know a load of administrators must be watching this page, so I am going to tell you all this right here:

The recent antics (Nanook Vandalism etc.) preformed by this anonymous user (216.164.203.90) were preformed on purpose, as a part of an experiment. I am currently writing to you from my place of work, located in Boston, Mass, USA. I have chosen to perform this unorthodox experiment from my workplace, in order to avoid negative votes on my possible upcoming election as an administrator, on the Wikipedia username I use from home. The main purpose of this experiment was to know, first hand, what vandalism “feels like,” from the vandals’ point of view. Let me tell you, “I have learned a lot” I appreciate how you all quickly reverted vandalism and left welcoming warning messages in the beginning. When I continued to vandalize “Wolf” I appreciated how you all “Assumed Good Faith.” However, Kim van der Linde, at times you forgot to stay “As cool as a cucumber.” I especially admired Radio Kirk’s reaction and cool persistence with the block he initiated. His direct quoting of the complaints of others was a smart move. I also liked how you all continually to welcome me to Wikipedia even though I was annoying the ^&%$ out of you. So, to recap, the recent problems caused by than account were done on purpose, as an experiment by me, in order to find better ways of combating vandalism with my other Wikipedia account. I thank you all for you response and for now I’m signing out. If anyone else uses the ip to access Wikipedia in the future, please regard them as a new user, as I don’t plan on using my work computer to access Wikipedia in the future. Thank you all and have a great day! 216.164.203.90 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. No kid ever really got a hold of my “Laptop” --216.164.203.90 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]