User talk:63.215.29.202

 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

Your edit to Taylor Ball
Your recent edit to Taylor Ball (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 00:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Train
Your recent edit to Train (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Charles Dickens
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. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

February 8, 2007
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. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Your recent edit to Status message (instant messaging) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

From A to Z
A. Systems Theory is a "transdisciplinary" field of inquiry. It does not seek to integrate disclipines, rather it seeks to transcend them with common principles,(see definition below)All system theory websites acknowledge this fact. B. In its broadest sense it is the study of the Universe, including physical systems. Open systems is the study of living systems. It is a serious error to assume systems theory is just a complex kind of organization theory as if that would explain everything systems theory is about. Technically, systems theory is not a theory but a different way of looking at the Universe and all within it. C. Systems theory as an accepted science is usually attributed to the formation of the society for general systems studies. Macy Conference may be relevant but it was not the spark that lit the fire. The relativistic notions undrelying the philosophy of systemics, go back very far in our history. D. Modern scientific advances refuted classical mechanistic assumptions, beginning with Planck's black body radiation experiments, and in particular  those assumptions that objects can be studied in isolation. Perhaps the most sigtnificant difference between conventional science ans systems thinking is the realization that there are properties of the whole which cannot be found in the parts alone. The wetness of water cannot be found in the constituent gases. E. The correct spelling is Laszlo F. The article says; " It is in this way that systems theorists attempted to provide alternatives and an evolved ideation from orthodox theories " what is "an evolved ideation from orthodox theories."? I never heard the word "system theorist" before, and I never heard the word "alternative" in the sense above, I don't know what ideation means, and I am not sure what orthodox theories are either. Alternative and evolved do not fit together here. Systems theory is metatheory, that is, it applies to theory in general. It considers observations that were not observed before in orthodox theory. Because the basis f system theory is a new way of looking, it can be argued that it did not evolve from a lower science. Remember almost all science is specific, systems theory is general. G. The article says " Bela H. Banathy, who argued - along with the founders of the systems society - that “the benefit of humankind” is the purpose of science, has made significant and far-reaching contributions to the area of systems theory." Actually it was the founders who sought to create a science for the benefit of mankind, and Bela, a life long teacher of systemics, maintained that systems science should be for the benefit of humankind. And Bela did not argue, but was stating a fact. H. The article reads " emphasizing that understanding results from knowing concepts both in part and as a whole." Bela states it better, that the whole has properties which are not found in the parts. This point is probably our number one insight, yet it was removed and replaced with "...knowing concepts both in parts and as a whole. " The idea is that there are properties of the whole which cannot be found in the parts. Try and figure out what these words mean by studying the black ink or white paper. I. The article reads, "The theorists sought holistic methods by developing systems concepts that could be integrated with different areas." should be "The theorists developed system models using holistic methodology to integrate different areas. Almost every sentence does not say anything useful, but rather is a movie critic kind of writing. J. The article reads; "The contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory (which has as its subject a single part) is simply an example of changing assumptions. The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, equally recognizing interactions of the parts are not "static" and constant but "dynamic” processes." whereas our edits read, "A shift in emphasis from the object to the dynamic." Less is more. K The article reads, "Conventional closed systems were questioned with the development of open systems perspectives. " |} We have BOTH closed and open systems. We do not think of one competing with the other, Most of our concepts are complementary, meaning that both sides are equally considered as the case may be. L The article reads ,"The shift was from absolute and universal authoritative principles and knowledge to relative and general conceptual and perceptual knowledge (Bailey 1994: 3-8), still in the tradition of theorists that sought to provide means in organizing human life. " Very confusing writing. Banathy writes about a dozen of these shifts. Again, organizing life is a special case of the more general system theory. M The article reads: "Meaning, the history of ideas that preceded where rethought not lost." hmmmmm this needs a lot of work. Do you mean to say "old ideas were used in the new science" N. Fritjof Capra is not a system theorist per se. I wish he was. On the other hand, I guess it is the "theorist" part that I don't grasp. Theory is only a part of systems theory, so it would be hard to find a systemist who studies only theory. O. Is Richard Swanson G,A, Swanson? There are tens of thousands systemists, I guess I don't know them all, P. Debora Hammond has just begun her career, her book is her dissertation. Q. The article reads, " Mechanistic assumptions were particularly critiqued, especially the industrial-age mechanistic metaphor of the mind from interpretations of Newtonian mechanics by Enlightenment philosophers and later psychologists that laid the foundations of modern organizational theory and management by the late 19th century (Bailey 1994; Flood 1997; Checkland 1999; La(s)zlo 1972). Newton evidently did not become obsolete with the work of Max Plank in quantum physics and the general advances in scientific thought, but questions arose over foundational assumptions that historically influenced the general organization of social, political and cultural life." does not give me any uiseful information whatsoever. What are the mechanistic assumptions? The mechanistic metaphor? What did the Enlightenment philosophers really say? What are the foundations of modern organizational theory? How can a person (Newton) become obsolete? What worl of Planck? What general advance in scientific thought? And what foundational assumptions? None of these questions are answered. R. The article reads ,"The research project that resulted influenced major applied and theoretical areas from sociology to organizational theory. The systems view was based on several fundamental ideas. First, all phenomena can be viewed as a web of relationships among elements, or a system. Second, all systems, whether electrical, biological, or social, have common patterns, behaviors, and properties that can be understood and used to develop greater insight into the behavior of complex phenomena and to move closer toward a unity of science. System philosophy, methodology and application are complementary to this science " fails to mention that the web of relationships forms a whole which has properties not to be found in any analysis of the parts. Common properties? Common behavoirs? common patterns of what? S. Is Klin Klir? T. The article reads, "The interaction between systems and their environments are categorized in terms of absolutely closed systems, relatively closed, and open systems. " An interaction of a system and its environment by definition is an open system. U. The article reads ," The case of an absolutely closed system is a rare, special case." Special case is not being used properly. All instances are special cases. All atomic and molecular systems are closed systems. V. Things like cultural systems, international system, economic system, belong is "system" article not systems theory article. W,X,Y & Z I just now realize that there is an attempt to ignore the writings of the primary authors, and replace it with the writings of the editor. That would work if they both said the same thing. This article does not capture the essence of systems theory as it is known among those who practice it. Systems theory is not organzational theory, it is interactional theory. Objects organize, dynamics interact. We respect the languange of our luminaries and realize the significance of properly framed metaphors and models. We do not see any value in using complicated language to describe a complex subject. Can anyone do better than this paragraph by Senge below? This is how good writng reads. It is not an improvement to muddle the language, miss the point, mislead the reader and fail to impart critical information. The article as it reads now is extremely harmful in that it reduces a science to nonsense Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static “snapshots.” It is a set of general principles—distilled over the course of the twentieth century, spanning fields as diverse as the physical and social sciences, engineering, and management. ...During the last thirty years, these tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological, and even psychological systems. And systems thinking is a sensibility—for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character. Peter Senge "The Fifth Discipline"
 * Tom, I see that you have done much to offer review and points of consideration for the article. Many of the issues are topics that were on my mind for correction, and points which I specifically noted on the talk page that I would make aims to correct.  The work on the page has been much in progress.  My apologies, that, with the talking the talk on the talk page without walking the walk to actually contribute to the page, with the confusion over user IPs, and the mixing of commenator's names to comments, I am not entirely focused to working on the page.  Your commentary is evidenlty helpful if I would ever choose to return to work on the page.  It is unfortunate that previous talk for the page has not more effectively brought users together to improve the article.  The page is still there for other users to change, including yourself.  Thank you for your time. --Kenneth M Burke 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that it had to come to this. I am banned from editing at wikipedia for unknown/unstated reasons and my request for appeal has been ignored. I have no desire to work where to do the good thing is doing the wrong thing. We might have made a good team Ken, you demonstrated how a good Wikipedian ought to act, but I have enemies and they are in control. I wish you the best and good luck

tom mandel aka tommysun
 * Oh, I am very sorry to hear that. I might have been more willing to touch base with your comments had not there been so much confusion, debate and banter on the talk page.  Maybe possibilities will come again at another time.  You can always contact me if you like.  Take care. --Kenneth M Burke 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

April 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 Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series) was changed by 63.215.29.202 (u) (t) deleting 11242 characters on 2008-04-08T21:13:29+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Hi, the recent edit you made to Jim Sturgess 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. Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC) The recent edit you made to Chiodos constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Dreadstar †  04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

May 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 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was changed by 63.215.29.202 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-05-11T17:24:05+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of Illinois state symbols. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. — Ched ~ (yes?) 08:11, 13 March 2009 (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.

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Good Times has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Recognizance (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Steve Buyer
Take your disagreement to the talk page. &mdash;Notyourbroom ( talk ) 18:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Murder of George Tiller has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. User:Marek69. 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Grove City College. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dick Morris, you will be blocked from editing. - EdoDodo  talk 19:01, 24 November 2009 (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.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Dick Morris. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. - EdoDodo  talk 19:07, 24 November 2009 (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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Haley Barbour has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. NellieBly (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AOL
FYI, this IP address is used by AOL, and so corresponds to multiple different users.

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lynn Jenkins, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Lynn Jenkins was changed by 63.215.29.202 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2010-01-27T03:15:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Lynn Jenkins. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Schfifty 3  03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Cornell Lewis have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

March 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Patrick J. Kennedy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  20:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Groupthink (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Showtime2009 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Prolog (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Affordable Health Care for America Act has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lamb99 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Dana Rohrabacher, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Dana Rohrabacher was changed by 63.215.29.202 (u) (t) deleting 14792 characters on 2010-03-28T08:08:06+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Showtime2009 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.