User talk:129.71.73.248

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 129.71.73.248, is registered to Fairmont State University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Contents

[edit] Krauthammer vs. John Edwards

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. 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.

Please stop inserting the POV version. The original Krauthammer reference is there for everyone to check it out, but he was reacting to a misquote, which is an important point of the whole thing and thoroughly referenced. Not including this fact into the article is not NPOV and deleting it can be seen as vandalism. Kncyu38 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad [faith] try. See the talk page of the article and stop making lame insinuations of policy violations. 129.71.73.248 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Most certainly not bad faithed, on that much I insist. Concerning this piece of mind from you: As you may see, I quite consciously changed the sentence concerning Krauthammer from the incorrect (and, yes, POV-ish sounding) misquote to the correct quote. Someone else (I don't know or care who) had at one point seemingly "fantasy-quoted" Krauthammer in the edit which you so much contend. I propose (good-faithed as ever, maybe even naive) the following: a) CALM THE FUCK DOWN, PLEASE. b) how about "it was later quoted as "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Progressive research and information center Media Matters argued that this had been a misquote and, when the entire quote is used, "Edwards was premising 'people like Christopher Reeve' 'walk[ing] again' on the outcome of research that a Kerry administration would support." That's as far as I can or will go, and we will see how other editors react. If, however, this proposition should be contested by other people, I will leave it to them. -- Btw: And sorry for my tone, thing is, I just fucked up an important exam IRL, and not because I wasn't well-prepared, but because the fucking medical professor is a fucking tit-obsessed dental-care-students favouring drunk piece of Prussian sailor shit. Kncyu38 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Welcome!

Hello, 129.71.73.248, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! The Phoenix Enforcer 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

Hi, the recent edit you made to Spread betting has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks – Gurch 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No surprise

RE: Alliance for Progress‎

I warned the person who gave a third party opinion that you may not be satisfied with the deletion of the quote. I am disappointed that you are not satisfied that the quote has now been removed. I suggest taking the time to do research on this subject, and adding references and material. Travb (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You have contributed absolutly nothing to this article and you are wasting my time. I am going to have the third party person make an opinion, then start a RfC. Travb (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I see that you have contributed a lot to other articles, including referenced material. My apologies. Travb (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Guenter Lewy. While you may not have literally broken the three-revert rule, you have nonetheless allowed an edit war to continue for several days. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss the issue, whereas the other individual declared outright that he has no intention of acknowledging any edit or opinion of mine. I am not a process fetishist who will be carted off by official distractions like "mediation" for something so trivial, so what other avenue is there but to state my intentions and see it through? The only other user who has spoken on the substance of the matter leans towards my edit. The user in question "opposing" me does so for personal reasons, as he has on articles such as Abbie Hoffman, where he reverted my deletion of spurious, unsourced content simply because it was my edit. At present the issue can be boiled down to this: it is a fight over a stylistic format change that is necessary and due, but since the person who made the change is myself he will not concede to it unless he is coaxed or coerced into doing so by other editors. My actions are solely in the interest of modestly improving the article in question, whereas this editor is attempting to throw up a roadblock and probably wishes for interventions even if he is rebuked in similar terms (because it "establishes" that I have "done something wrong" and therefore any dispute later will be viewed as a continuation of "bad behavior"). I have (quietly) seen this process play out numerous times on this site, and judging by your personal page about Wikipedia problems I would be astonished if you could not see it in play here. 129.71.73.248 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't interested in dispute resolution, there's not much I can do for you except advise you that continuing to edit war will bring more of the same results, and the blocks will likely get longer. Sorry, can't give you anything else. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in becoming a mini-process lawyer over a trivial dispute. If you can advise a solution that is fast and binding, I am interested. Otherwise it is clear that your intentions are oriented around punishment rather than resolution of the issues involved. Tell me, what do you expect should happen with the article in the meantime, that some tag will be placed over a minor stylistic change to note that there is an edit conflict, or that the article be left as is (with his edit intact) and the issue dropped because he simply refuses to discuss it? What do you see as a realistic outcome to this? Are you simply on patrol and uninterested in the actual content? Because so far I see people criticizing the fact that there is an edit war but not actually dealing with the substance of the edits or the reason for Travb's behavior. 129.71.73.248 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I made the block because of edit warring with no consideration for the content. Indeed, it could hardly be considered equitable if I had taken the content into consideration. Edit warring is against the principles of Wikipedia. One of the reasons blocking exists is to prevent it. As for a solution that is fast and binding, no, I have nothing to suggest. Arbitration is binding, but it is not fast, and you generally must pursue other steps of dispute resolution first. So, there's really no way for you to go except to dispute resolution or to drop the issue. If you and Travb continue to edit war, you'll just end up blocked again, which is no solution at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really no solution at all. Say that I revert, place a tag noting that there is a dispute in the article, and try to start some dispute resolution process. Does that count as edit warring, even if Travb does not cooperate? What beyond this concession to policy am I supposed to do? Just give up and allow that one person can halt my edits simply by being obstinate? It appears now, looking at his block history, that these sort of actions are a recurring event. I was not asking you to mediate the content dispute itself but to suggest what will realistically solve it. As of now, he has no reason to do anything because his edit stands, but does one revert (of mine) merit a block? Does his subsequent revert merit a block to both of us? I see no actual written policy for these questions nor any possible way to avoid being construed as continuing an "edit war" going forward besides simply giving in. 129.71.73.247 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 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 Eight-ball, 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. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 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.