User talk:68.22.252.165

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vandalism

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 are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --Yamla 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with the page User talk:200.55.213.30 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. Thanks.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User talk:68.22.252.165, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 22:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you edited Celebrity sex tape and deliberately implied that I had vandalised the article. This is the last time you will do something like that. --Yamla 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I'll stop, I'm sorry. That was definitely going too far. 68.22.252.165 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


My deletion nomination of a certain article that starts with the letter N is serious and should not be dismissed. I am outraged. 68.22.252.165 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please consider reading this page, as it will help explain why your edits are being removed. Thanks Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:200.55.213.30, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's so not vandalism, but I have no desire to be banned. I'm going to take a self-imposed break from editing, but I ask that should I return that my warning level be lowered, according to how others are usually forgiven. I haven't made any vandalous, or, at least, malicious edits to wiki, but I will take a break only because I fear being banned. 68.22.252.165 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Favorite Yamla quote ever! "If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User talk:68.22.252.165..."

P.S. Feel free to reply.

It's quite possible to vandalise your own talk page. --Yamla 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Yamla 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Chad Michael Murray

I agree with you that removing someone's comments from a talk page is "uncool", and, in my own words, rude. The only catch is that article talk pages are reserved for the discussion of the article and not how hot Chad Michael Murray is and that John 'luvs' him. That particular message was not intended to help the article, so I removed it. tv316 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


A) I have made some pointless, and, in my opinion, harmless edits to the talk pages of people who've vandalised wiki. [In one instance, someone wrote a word with several y's, I editted one out, and Yamla reverted my edit, which, in my opinion, seemed pretty pointless, although he probably did have the high road...] I have since stopped doing that sort of thing.

These aren't harmless edits. You were changing what other people wrote. This is considered vandalism. --Yamla 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

B) I added a contradiction tag to my own talk page, which has been removed. I believe this is simply the work of someone out to revert what I do, and in my opinion I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to have one, but I won't replace it in the future.

Actually it's not. Have a good look at Wikipedia:Vandalism for what we consider vandalism. Removing official notices is vandalism. Also adding that tag adds your talk page to a category which isn't supposed to be for talk pages. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

C) I don't see how making fun of an admin constitutes persistant vandalism, but...

It is known as a personal attack, and it gives the admin the assumption that you don't care about the warning. Just be aware that admins don't take stuff like that lightly. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

D) I have been made aware of the fact that Wiki isn't censored, and have stopped trying to have an article containing the N word editted. In my opinion, the article should still have a cleanup tag, but..

You may want to see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

E) Both tv316 and Yamla have removed someone's comments from a discussion page, which is profoundly uncool. I've seen tv316's reasons above, but Yamla's reasons are probably, in my opinion, simply reverting what I write without reading it.

Yamla probably removed it as a personal attack. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is reasonable to remove personal attacks or to remove completely off-topic messages on an article's discussion page. For example, if someone claims they love an actor or they want an actress to email them, this person misunderstands what the Wikipedia (and, more specifically, the discussion page) is all about. --Yamla 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

F) And, finally, I apologized for offending Yamla, and then apologized for continuing to edit the talk pages of vandals (which I stopped, although it probably took him a while to find everything I did by the time he warned me), but I don't see why I deserved to be banned when my last posts have been beneficial (Improving grammar on a hurricane article, and updating the Chad Michael Murray article).

I banned you temporarily because you had previously promised to stop and then completely failed to do so. You made a number of personal attacks and a large number of edits classed as vandalism. You received numerous warnings and these seemed to have no effect on you except to get yet more promises that you'd stop vandalising, which you again didn't. You have now promised once again to stop vandalising and have been unblocked on the basis of this comment. I really do hope that you mean it this time and I am happy to see some productive edits coming from you. --Yamla 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I hardly find any of what I did to compare even remotely to adding something to an actual article that doesn't belong there. When I think of vandalism, I think writing something in an article that compromises the integrity of Wiki, not writing things into userpages (my own included) or mocking admins.

While you are certainly not one of the worst vandals I have dealt with around here, your edits have been time-consuming to revert and have been compromising the integrity of the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I hope and expect you will now contribute only good edits. --Yamla 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope someone will hear me out. I do not believe I have acted with any intent to hurt a wiki article (except the one about the N word, but I wasn't aware that there's nothing against it in wiki's rules).

I'd like to add that I'm not in any way angry or hasty, I just don't think what I did was as bad, and I promise not to do this stuff again. It was fun, but it's inconvenient for me to be banned.

I see that you mean good faith, and I'll unblock you for it. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I know why you people have to threaten (and enforce) to block people without warning, but when whether or not something is really vandalism (like my putting the comments back on the Chad Michael Murray talk page), I think I should have time to explain myself before I'm blocked. 68.22.252.165 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But actually, you were warned a few times. You do have the right to explain yourself. That's why this page is open for you to edit while you're blocked. But please read over WP:V and WP:NPA before you make any more edits. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks? Darn! Well, I can live with that, I guess...

No vandalism of any kind, please. Because of the multiple warnings, multiple vandalism, and prior block, you will be blocked with less warning in the future. --Yamla 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No vandalism of any kind, in addition to no personal attacks and/or immature mockery. Got it. Kamikaze Highlander 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)