User talk:193.164.162.124

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 193.164.162.124, is registered to Scottish Parliament, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, 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 and a block may be shared by many. 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 see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

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

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT 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.

[edit] Brap

For the nth time, it's not vandalism. Brap is a slang phrase with no reference to Enochian Angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.162.124 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that you may know something that myself or the other editors who reverted your edits and left vandalism warning notices on your page don't know. However, it is impossible for us to find out that you do know something if you don't discuss your point on the article's talk page or leave a clear explanation of why you did what you did in the edit summary. You also blanked the same article twice today without any explanation. That makes it even harder for us to assume good faith because it is seen as unconstructive. I hope this explains the situation a little more. If you are willing to contribute to the article in a constructive manner, feel free to ask me for help on how to do that. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)