User talk:71.225.223.62

March 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what.[edit]

I'll stop reverting when someone tells me one thing I got wrong. I am not a vandal. I am SICK and TIRED of people undoing my constructive work on Wikipedia. I have done nothing wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.223.62 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009

April 2009[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. KnightLago (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2009 (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.

If you would like to contest your block please do so under your original account. KnightLago (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Spencer Bachus. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Spencer Bachus, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician), because he has not (yet) been convicted of DWI. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page List of University of Florida 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. Ono (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Steven Schiff 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. DougsTech (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Steven Schiff. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. DougsTech (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Richard Ottinger. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. DougsTech (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Rehberg Homo Joke[edit]

Please do not vandalise the page. The actions of Congressman Rehberg indicates a severe lack of concern for his constituents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.31.14 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) your edit history seems to reveal vandalism72.160.20.138 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)stop vandalising the denny rehberg page. if you do not like his actions, take it up with him. your past actions and edits on wiki reveal that your edits do not meet the standards expected. what do you have against jews anyway? if you do not cease, you may be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.20.138 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to User talk:72.160.20.138. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. Gsmgm (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSSenators[edit]

You have repeatedly altered the format of Template:CSSenators, without giving any reason. If there is a good reason for the change then please explain it: otherwise please leave the template in its established format, which agrees with other similar templates. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

crude language from republican sock puppet[edit]

thanks for the vulgar language, it really reveals your adjenda. you have vandalised pages with demeaning references to jews, why stop there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.27.31 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) you are too busy denigrating others to see that you are very close to getting banned(again?).72.160.27.31 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppet or mystery man, who cares?[edit]

From your edit history it is apparent that you do not respect the wiki ideals. Please do not refer to the contributions of others as "vandalism" while deleting them.

In the event that you do not mend your ways, you will be banned (until you change ISPs, again).

72.160.27.31 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adhomenin, again[edit]

great retorts, do you lose your temper often? please refrain from making personal attacks72.160.27.31 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I call it vandalism?[edit]

It is now evident that you were not engaged in vandalism on the Secretaries of State list. Nonetheless, my reversion and labeling of it as vandalism was quite reaonable at the time. Consider:

When I viewed the diff for this edit, what I saw was an apparent labeling of the Eagleburger picture with the caption, "James Baker".
This would have been enough to label this as vandalism. However, I thought that maybe I misread the table, that since Baker and Eagleburger were consecutive SoS's, that maybe there was a reason for this entry. So I opened up the page, and found this: The Eagleburger entry with a redlink where his picture should be.
Add to this the fact that this was being done by an anon IP editor, and that anon and new editors account for the vast majority of vandalism, and it wasn't too much of a stretch to presume vandalism.

I'm glad to see that you're a serious editor. But if you want to be taken seriously, and not have other editors jump the gun and revert your work without giving you a few minutes to finish it, I urge you to register a username. Editing with a username you will begin to acquire a reputation, and as such, other editors will not be so quick to judge you. You will also be allowed to edit semi protected articles. And with a username, you can actually be more anonymous, since there are people out there, not even of Wikipedia, who can trace you to your IP, but cannot trace your username.

So get serious, and get a username. Un school 04:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (71.225.223.62) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Un school 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilchrist. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't remove cited material with out discussing it on the talk page first. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (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.

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2009 (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.

Specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Gilchrist&oldid=298835924 - You removed a large cited criticism section without an edit summary or discussing the reason on the relevant talk page --Falcon8765 (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I made such a designation in error, I apologize; however, the edit does appear to be vandalism in the context of the article -Falcon8765 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, TW got switched around somehow. --Falcon8765 (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked this IP address for a month, due to long-term IP socking. --Kanonkas : Talk 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you. Because you don't like what I put on Ted Poe's page, which was fact, you block me? I don't vandalize page, never have. 71.225.223.62 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have never vandalized one page. Not ONE person has ever pointed to this supposed "vandalism" I have been partaking in. Because they don't like something I entered, they move to block me. I have had it with these people. THEY ought to be blocked, i.e. Kanonkas

Decline reason:

You might notice that your block reason doesn't mention vandalism (which might explain why nobody has pointed it out); it mentions sockpuppetry, an entirely different problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (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.

August 2009 warnings[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to David Scott, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Scott. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Also note that removal of BLP-violating edits is exempt from 3RR limits, so that editors who revert your BLP violations are not subject to its sanctions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.