User talk:72.148.169.67: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:10, 16 March 2008

October 2007

Thank you for experimenting with the page Solomon on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Eliyak T·C 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Solomon article was broken up into too many sections.I reformated the article to where it was more eaisly readable.I did not remove any facts.YOU,HOWEVER, DID REMOVE MY FACTS I ADDED THEREFORE YOU ARE THE VANDAL.King Solomon died of syphilis,that's beleived to be a fact.My friends and I will keep the solomon page proper,I was not sandboxing with it!I'm an experanced contributer,I had a sn on this site before.If I have to get an administrator to calm you down I WILL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.169.67 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure how adding "baana!!!" to the Solomon article was an improvement. It is possible that that edit was made by someone other than yourself, since this is the talk page for an IP address which may be registered to more than one individual. If you wish, you can create an account to avoid receiving messages which were not intended for you. --Eliyak T·C 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from White Party. 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. MCB (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to White Party

Please stop your disruptive edits to the article White Party, including (1) removing references and citations; (2) removing sourced material from the article; and (3) removing the {{LGBT}} portal/infobox. In this series of edits you removed several sources and their citations and a number of paragraphs of sourced text. You have also used misleading edit summaries (such as "Grammer correction" for a major rewrite), as well as removing the article's lead paragraph several times. If you continue disruptive edits to this article, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you, --MCB (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sugar, without explaining the 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. From-cary (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2008 (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.

To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using an email address issued to you by your ISP or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network.

In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Information should never be deleted! I do not deserve to be blocked, because my information was deleted by the blocker no. 1,no. 2 I was editing it and reformating it to make it more reader friendly and precise. Which can be easily seen by anyone who is not part of the From-cary friend group,no. 3 articles do not belong to individual adminstraors but to the world, I am allowed to edit and reformat if it makes the article better.,no. 4 I beleive From-cary and BorgQueen are really one and the same person, which is illegal according to Wikipedia rules,this should be looked in by an adminstrator, no. 5 there are to many editors and not enough conributors of information, I can see why, when most of the persons here are trying to be a chief, or double teaming everyone else.Even if I stick to the format at hand on an article and just add information,it still gets deleted!Certain people think they own articles,and wont let any one improve on them.Just like the "king solomon" article for example when I added a fact that most scholars beleive king solomon died of std related infections brought on by the many wives he had, that was deleted because the "owner" of that article was a Jewish boy that can't have any "bad" facts related to a Jewish person on this site. This needs to stop. Articles will change regardless of how much work u put in it or how in love u are with it.

Decline reason:

Accusing administrators of impersonating each other, and making insinuations bordering on anti-semitism against Jewish editors does not make a strong case for unblocking. If you wish to continue editing, please review our policies on assuming good faith and civility. — MCB (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2008 (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.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I want another persons opion.1 MCB your opion does not matter.You are bias! you are not a third party you don't like me cause I reformated your article so that it's more factual and reader friendly.So you watch my page and do this to me? Shows the quality of admiistrators we have on this site.2 I do not see where it says From-clay is an administror. 3 Implying I'm anti-semtic based on what? You should read before you type!How did you ever become an admistrator? That really is the last straw for you! I've told you to stop harrsing me before. You don't wanna get outa my way I'll go over your head.4 I see you take issue with my tone, not my facts,another reason why shouldn't be an administror.You can't argue with my facts I pop em out like Riply.6 You are another reason why there should be less adminstrators and automated software on this site. You erased the facts I put in. You shouldn't be an administrator,you shouldn't be allowed to be!How does this bias person get to choose if my request is passed? How is this sytem set up? Is there any real adminstrators out there? Help please.}}

Request handled by: 72.148.169.67 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ME O MY

How did I approve my own request? LOL Another flaw in this system? Well I'll wait till I get a responce from a real adminstror b4 I do anymore work!

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
 |}
+== ME O MY ==
+How did I approve my own request? LOL Another flaw in this system? Well I'll wait till I get a responce from a real adminstror b4 I do anymore work!