User talk:130.126.143.59/Archive 1

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Newport News, Virginia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Dcooper 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please notice the three revert rule. You are in danger of violating this on International Space Station and will be sunject to blocking. Rmhermen 18:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I know about the 3 revert rule, and I am in no more danger of violating it, than you are of murdering someone. I.e., I have scruples and follow the law, despite these apologists.

International Space Station
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to International Space Station. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Thank you for experimenting with 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. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Brigham Young University
I notice above that you claim to "have scruples and follow the law" in regards to the three revert rule, however, you have already violated it on Brigham Young University. Please follow the process and discuss this change on the talk page or you will be blocked from further editing. -- Renesis (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have personally looked through the 1998 issues of the Daily Universe and could not find the editorial you are claiming is a source for your addition to the article. Can you cite to a particular page of a particular edition? alanyst /talk/ 23:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico article
From the Wikipedia article on invasion, "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity". Does this describe the actions of the United States in Puerto Rico? Joelito (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Invasion is not a weasel word. Furthermore, wiki-lawyering with me will not work. Read any scholar account of the war. The majority (if not all) will refer to it as an invasion of Puerto Rico, not a liberation. Joelito (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it would be far to much to ask you too, oh I don't know, LOOK AT MY EDIT. I didn't undo anything, or even make any changes, I just dropped in a comment to continue the discussion.  As for undoing edits, YOU are the one doing so, pushing your blatent POV.
 * I looked at your edit which is why I didn't revert it I am just warning you. Per your words "we liberated them and brought them freedom". Do you think this does not give away your bias? Have you read in any scholar work that it was a liberation? How can it be a liberation when Puerto Rico is neither free nor a state? Joelito (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every history book is not a name. Title and page number?
 * Also the key word is "we". It clearly identifies you as being past of the liberators. Joelito (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create a account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
 * The use of your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed.
 * The ability to create new pages.
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
 * The ability to upload images.
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).. Shell babelfish 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Malt liquor
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 130.126.143.59! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \burbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is not a valid source for WP. Unless you have a valid source for the term, stop reverting. OscarTheCat3 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. OscarTheCat3 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. OscarTheCat3 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense here it is considered vandalism. The talk page is available in the edit history. By the way, your own link says NOTHING about it being bad to delete comments, just that you can't edit them and misrepresent someone. Now go play somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.143.59 (talk • contribs).
 * From WP:VAND:


 * Talk page vandalism
 * Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon. (emphasis added)


 * So, yes, though you are technically within your rights to remove the many warnings that have been placed on your talk page in the past (though you should have moved them to an archive page), it is, at best, poor form to so do. It will be interesting to see whether this reply is reverted as well.
 * If you'd like some help with archiving your talk page, just say so here and I'll gladly help you out. OscarTheCat3 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Frown away, I'm new here, and have never received warnings before.

Trying to get rid of that damn yellow bar...