User talk:65.69.81.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 December 2005 2 September 2006 3 December 2006 4 February 2007 5 March 2007 6 April 2007 7 June 2007 8 November 2007 9 January 2008 10 April 2008 11 May 2008 12 Your recent edits 13 June 2008

[edit] December 2005

Please don't vandalize the He-Man article -LtNOWIS 04:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Nlu (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2006

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Wes Bergmann. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 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. Meeples (talk)(email) 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] February 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Neurotically Yours, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Crossmr 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Hi there. Can you please sign your user comments correctly rather than as User:Mapleleaf. You're comments are not coming from user Mapleleaf but from you. You may be the same person, but if you're going to sign as Mapleaf you need to be signed in as Mapleleaf, otherwise sign as your standard four ~s so you give your IP. Otherwise people may give you a warning and block you for impersonating an other user. Ben W Bell talk 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I do agree with your sentiment written here far more than I'm willing to say, your comments are reading rather heated and innappropriate. I'm saying this because I, too, am very frustrated at several people's stance against this movie, and have to keep reeling myself in for fear of spewing out what it is I really want to say. It would be wise not to put yourself at risk of being considered a vandal, however, so you may want to tone it down. Furthermore, the talk page is more for discussing ways in which to contribute to the article; it shouldn't be a forum for discussion about the movie, which is a rule that a lot of people are disregarding, unfortunately.

Also, as the user above (Ben W. Bell) noted, you're not signing your comments correctly. In order to do that, just add four tilde (~) after your comments and it will automatically attribute them to your IP address. If you wish to joined wiki as MapleLeaf, however, that's cool; just don't attribute your comments to an incorrect source. María: (habla ~ cosas) 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Wendy's, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice

[edit] June 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Devon Werkheiser, you will be blocked from editing. 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. The Sunshine Man 15:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Heracles. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. EALacey (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Jan 08 ban announcement.The reason i keep removing that is simple because first of all the above warmings are not mine. they were here before i got on this system. I have no idea what that is all about. Second I am putting this response in because I know I will only be banned again. To be honest I did not realize that removing information about The Book of revelation was a banning offense. There was information that i thought was irrelavant to the book. As a firm believer of the bible any part of it being assume to have been written by a crazy person to me is just wrong. So i removed it. DID NOT REALIZE I WAS VANDALIZING. Now i know i will only be banned again, but i honestly did not know that was vandalizm. there have been a lot of things that have been removed and no one was banned. I apologize for offending you or who ever i did offend. Now that i have had my say and promise not to 'vandalize' again go ahead and banned me again. by the way if this is a user page for me why can't i remove messages that offend me? I'm ready for the banned. hold my head down and prepare.

65.69.81.2 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)==Your edits==

I have undone some of your edits on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article, though I understand that your edits were well intentioned. In the first instance, making entire paragraphs bold doesn't improve readability, and in the second, the paragraph in question contains references that specifically name the critic. That said, it is a policy of Wikipedia is to be bold, so all well-intentioned edits are welcomed, though they may not last. If you feel something disputed warrants further discussion, take it to the articles Talk page. Happy editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User :65.69.81.2 There are so many articles that wish to down play the parts of the JW religion that they really don't understand. I will not go back in and change the article. If people want to discredit something they don't understand that is ok. this being said is in no way directed to anyone in particular. I just find it interesting that people want to write up document reports on religions that they are no part of. There are pages on Cathlics, Baptist, and other religions that state opinions of people who are not even a part of those religions. To me and this is personal it is very sad when there are people who will 'critically analzye something that they do not believe in themselves. oh well. User:65.69.81.2

Impartiality is an important tool in proper critical analysis. Far from being 'sad', input from 'non-believers' is an important method for arriving (in some cases, eventually) at consensus. Obviously, an article composed entirely by only 'believers' would be far more likely to be extremely biased. To broadly state that people make edits about 'parts of the JW religion they don't understand', without indicating what those alleged 'parts' are, is not at all helpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

oh my goodness i did not type that at all i would never do that!!!!!!!!!! i AM one of Jehovahs Witnesses!!!!

And yet you've just reinstated the same offending edit. It is unlikely that you have any credibility to warrant being unblocked. Please desist from disrupting Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

unblocking: please believe me. this is serious. I did not put that crap back i have just removed it again. I don't know who is doing this but it is not me. I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER disrespect anyone in that way. you can believe what you want but that is not me doing that. In fact i dont care what you think. I know i did NOT NOT NOT TYPE THAT CRAP NOR DID I PUT IT BACK IN. so please stop make rude comments such as "It is unlikely that you have any credibility to warrant being unblocked. Please desist from disrupting Wikipedia" I am compliant to the rules of wikipedia. The ONLY thing i did was to highlight a paragraph of the critisim of Jehovahs Witnesses that was talking about how they follow the law and molestation accuzations. When that was changed back i left it how it was. that other CRAP that you are saying did is just not true.

Your edit log very, very strongly suggests otherwise. Though dynamically assigned IP addresses can be assigned to different clients of the same ISP over time, it would not change from you to someone else, and then back to you in the space of two minutes, as is evidenced by your edits. Additionally, your Talk page history strongly suggests that you have a static address. As it extremely unlikely that someone would bother to specifically fake an IP address using a proxy just to make you look bad here, the only other possibility could be that someone else in the same room as you made the change in the space of two minutes while you weren't looking, which is also unlikely. There is very little room left for credibility.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look sir. I am sorry you choose to believe i typed that mess and choose to believe that i reverted that mess back in. this is tiresome. I can't change your thoughts. I work in an office where there are a lot of computers. to be honest I don't understand what address you are talking about. all i know is that i DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT TYPE THAT MESS NOR DID I REVERT THAT MESS BACK IN. I respect you administrative duty to block such disrespect and respect you. Believe what you want. I HAVE NOT nor WILL I EVER EVER DISRESPECT ANYONE OR THIER BELIEFS. but you think i did and so that is where it lies. I stand by my word. I did not type that mess! nor did I put that crap back in. Good day to you sir.

I did not block you, and am not an adminstrator. But I do get tired of vandalism of the JW article. If, as you say, you are editing from an office where someone else may be using your logon, it would be best for you to not edit Wikipedia from that office, as your address will very likely continue to be blocked, even if you are not personally making the offending edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I get tired also. It is tiresome when any deragator remark is made on behalf of any religion. As was stated before i work in an office of a huge corporation. What address you are talking about i have no idea. As stated before over and over again: I DID NOT TYPE THOSE REMARKS. I DID NOT REVERT THEM BACK IN. Each religion, nationality ect. deserves respect. the only only thing i did with in the last couple of days was to bold highlight in the critisim of Jehovahs witnesses. the part i highlighted was the paragraph on Witnesses reporting child molestation as by law. i did that because some seems to believe that witnesses dont report perverts and we do. it is the law and those sickos should be persequted. Sir I did not and i repeat did not type that other mess. nor did i revert. i dont even know when i showed up. all i know is that this morning i was blocked again. i thought i was about the highlighted paragraph. I DID NOT TYPE THAT OTHER MESS NOR DID I REVERT IT. NO religion should be subjected to that kind of bullying.

unblock: reason: I DID NOT TYPE THAT DEROGATOR STATEMENT NOR DID I REVERT IT. I get tired also. It is tiresome when any deragator remark is made on behalf of any religion. As was stated before i work in an office of a huge corporation. What address you are talking about i have no idea. As stated before over and over again: I DID NOT TYPE THOSE REMARKS. I DID NOT REVERT THEM BACK IN. Each religion, nationality ect. deserves respect. the only only thing i did with in the last couple of days was to bold highlight in the critisim of Jehovahs witnesses. the part i highlighted was the paragraph on Witnesses reporting child molestation as by law. i did that because some seems to believe that witnesses dont report perverts and we do. it is the law and those sickos should be persequted. Sir I did not and i repeat did not type that other mess. nor did i revert. i dont even know when i showed up. all i know is that this morning i was blocked again. i thought i was about the highlighted paragraph. I DID NOT TYPE THAT OTHER MESS NOR DID I REVERT IT. NO religion should be subjected to that kind of bullying. PLS READ ALL OF WHAT HAS BEEN TYPED

UNBLOCK: REASON: I DID NOT ATTACK ANYONE THIS IS NOT FAIR YOU DID NOT READ ANYTHING THAT I TYPED BEFORE

-This IP address might be shared by an large institution or organization. In that case, you may be blamed for edits by someone else on the same IP address. Unfortunately, admins on Wikipedia have no way of distinguishing you from this other person. To avoid problems like this, consider creating an account for yourself. Do not remove warnings or block notices from this talk page, even if you individually are not responsible for the edits that prompted them (again, having a user account of your own would prevent this problem).--Orphic (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

UNBLOCK: REASON: I STATE FOR THE FINAL TIME. I DID NOT TYPE NOR REVERT ANY PERSONALY ATTACKS. YOU OR WHOEVER HAVE NOT READ A THING THAT I HAVE TYPED IN MY DEFENSE. I WAS NOT EVEN ON THE COMPUTER WHEN THAT CRAP WAS DONE. I DID NOT I DID NOT I DID NOT. THIS IS MY FINAL ATTEMPT TO CLEAR MY NAME. I WAS BLOCK AND I AM ATTEMPTING TO CLEAR MY NAME WHICH IS REALLY POINTLESS BECAUSE NOTHING I TYPED HAS EVEN BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. I TYPED A REASON FROM THE BEGINING. I DID NOT ATTACK ANYONE. I RESPECT YOU AS AN ADMINISTRATOR BUT EVIDENTLY THAT SAME RESPECT IS NOT GIVE WHEN WHAT I HAVE TYPED HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. PLEASE HAVE A NICE DAY. THANK YOU.

Regardless of whether you are personally making the edits, your account is being used for inappropriate edits. If you want to be unblocked, stop complaining, and just create your own account instead of using an anonymous IP.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FIRST: of all thank you for the announcement of the multiple user on a proxy thing. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!THERE IS CLOSURE TO THIS.

SECOND: To user User:Jeffro77 This issue was closed when it was stated "PLEASE HAVE A NICE DAY. THANK YOU." The appeal was not to you. You stated yourself you were not an administrator. You to have a nice day and leave the issue alone. no more nasty comments from you will be read. the issue is closed. This page will not be read so whatever little nasty comment you type will not be read by me. the block is on and that the end of it. You are not an admin so leave the issue alone. Have a nice day. I appreciate your concern but i'm past it now. someone pasted some crap and that crap was blocked. that person was not me so whatever. again have a nice day. this is way way over.

Hi there. I am an administrator, and I noticed you seem to be having some problems with your IP's recent block. It appears that you are currently connecting through a shared IP for "Right Choice Managed Services," and someone other than yourself may have made the edits. Please note that the second block was not for vandalism but for personal attacks and possibly civility, presumably, in part, due to this edit. As of this writing it will expire in a little under 16 hours, at which time you will be able to edit again. I would suggest that you create an account so that if only anonymous users from your IP are blocked you will still be able to edit (again, assuming the blocking admin will only block anonymous users and not the whole IP); but, now that your IP has been tagged accordingly, it shouldn't be a problem in the future. In the meantime, you might consider familiarizing yourself with our policies, and be sure to adhere to neutral point of view, as it looks like someone (maybe you, whoever "you" is who will be reading this), highlighted criticism, which is also not part of our manual of style. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Hunger Plan for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lara Dutta, 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Lara Dutta was changed by 65.69.81.2 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-04-10T21:28:04+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:U.S. Cellular Field, you will be blocked for vandalism. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (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.

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Barbara Walters, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. --Art Smart (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Talk:Papoose (rapper), are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Your recent edit to User:Coolisha (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]