User talk:63.3.1.130/Archive 1

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Final Fantasy (video game) 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. ukexpat (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent AFD contributions
Your recent AFD contributions have been rather WP:POINTy. Please try to be more constructive. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but what do I do when the nominations are obviously pointy? --63.3.1.130 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD Contribs
Do you ever put any thought into your comments on AfD's? You have the same serial response on every project you contribute to. That, of course, equals nonsense and is therefore, a nuisance. I guess this is your new way to make trouble. How droll. --Candy156sweet (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the nominations in many of the discussions I post in, you could ask the same question as they are the same serial responses, which means they equal nonsense and are therefore a nuisance nominations from a trouble-maker. Do you really think copy and paste nominations across dozens of those deletion debates really deserve more than a response in kind?  --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. MuZemike ( talk ) 06:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A few things:
 * 1. This is a shared IP; I am absolutely NOT the only editor who has made even the bulk of the edits listed for it.
 * 2. Most of the recent edits and at least those I have made are in good faith and reasonably constructive.
 * 3. I have not double-voted or used any other IPs to back me up in any sock like fashion in the same discussions.
 * 4. Every time I log on I get some new IP in the same range.  There's nothing I can do about that.  I don't edit enough where I feel justified starting an account and given these IP's history of abuse by other users I wouldn't even want an account link to these IPs, but I figure so long as I don't use two different IPs in any of the same discussions this shouldn't be a problem, but again, unfortunately these 63  range IPs are shared by some unknown number of editors and are assigned as far as I can tell randomly.
 * Thus, I don't see anything here being done in bad faith or in an actual sock like fashion. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the case will remain open until the vandalism edits cease to occur for any of the IP#'s listed or there is some solution to the difficulties this dynamic IP seems to entail. While there are some respectable edits within the scale of your history, there are far more instances of vandalism.  Some of this vandalism can be construed as abusive.  I have yet to see one positive comment that pertains to any of the edits made by this account.  If you are diligent in really proving your innocence, then do not use Wikipedia anonymously.  Another way of dealing with this is to add your thoughts to the sockpuppetry complaint page.  That's all that I have to say.  --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no vandalism edits coming from these IPs that are listed. The older edits from the IPs do indeed look like vandalism, but otherwise this account is being used by multiple editors in a proactive fashion to fix up articles or add thoughts in deletion discussions.  As far as not editing anonymously, these are the IP ranges I am stuck with and as you noted they are shared by other editors who have made questionable edits.  If I created an account it would just be shared by these IPs and if whatever editors use these IPs for vandalism were to be checkusered or whatever, my account by being used on these IPs would probably be accused of being the other guys/gals.  It's a no win.  I can't afford to switch ISP in the current economy.  So, I'm stuck either using whichever 63 range IP I happen to get and which is shared by others who sometimes make good edits and other times don't, or I create an account only to have it get hosed whenever someone wants to charge the IPs with being socks and all.  And for whatever it's worth I am not whatever user who used these IPs in the past gave you a hard time and nor am I whatever other users you guys were trying to accuse me of being.  I am sure not to double vote anywhere or use the IPs to help out in any other kind of area.  --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the contributions for this IP# and other sockpuppet IP#'s and accounts related to this? If you think that there aren't any vandalism edits that come from this IP# or any of the other IP#'s within the sockpuppet list, then you are not checking the list or you just don't want to admit your guilt.  They all come from the same general location in Michigan aside from the newest IP# out of Colorado.  So unless there is a distinct explanation for all of these incidents, it will be considered sockpuppetry.  Here is the list of relative sockpuppets.  They're all related to one specific area, aside from the first one on the page.  That one comes from am IP# in a public library.  The same type of vandalism has shown up for all the those IP #'s including the responses that deal with AfD nominations.  If you can find a way to disprove that information, go right ahead and present it.  So far there is nothing there that clears you from any wrongdoing.  --Candy156sweet (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for everyone who uses this IP, but the vandalism edits of the past seem to have tapered off and I sure in heck am not doing any kind of vote stacking in AfDs. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is one and here is another from 63.3.1.2 (talk). It's all coming from the same location.  All of the listed sockpuppets other than this new one, and the one from the public library are coming from one central locale.  It's concrete.  The same internet provider for all of the numbers involved and one central location in Michigan.  Do you have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise?  If you don't want all this difficulty with dynamic IP#'s, then start an account with a username.  This way there is no confusion when it comes this issue. --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These are shared IPs and I am not the one who made those particular edits. Even if I created an account, it would still be used by these IPs that others are also making edits from and so what if some does one of those checky things, then I'd still get accused of being the others who use these IPs.  I can't win.  I do make sure that I don't use the IPs to vote multiple times or what have you, so I am certainly not using them as socks and there's nothing I can do about whatever other users use these IPs.  As for those two edits you show there, it's like two out of many and it doesn't seem to be happening as frequently as whoever was getting these in the past.  I plead to whoever else uses these IPs, please, please use them constructively so that the rest of us aren't unfairly hosed.  --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD trolling
Your recent AFD comments have been effectively trolling, just reversing the deletion nomination without actually contributing anything positive to the discussion. Please stop, or you are liable to be blocked for disruption. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you have also warned the nominator who just trolls those discussions writing the same worded nominations every time regardless of the individual notability or reference situation of the articles in question. Such cookie cutter noms don't really deserve much else.  --63.3.1.130 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the same wording in AFDs. If the same thing applies to numerous articles: then it's justified. Saying a discussion should be deleted because of AFD cruft is disruptive. People have every right to start up a AFD, even if you don't like it. I think you need to deal with them in a much more mature way, otherwise perhaps just avoid them. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I guess my using the same wording is totally okay as well as the same reasons to keep applies to numerous articles. Calling actual articles people worked on to expand the encyclopedia “cruft” is disruptive.  We are not deletionpedia, so I think it’s far worse to insult the actual writers of content than people who have been formally sanctioned for trolling deletion debates as a way of circumventing discussing merges and redirects on talk pages.  The guy is abusing the deletion process and no of us should humor him.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Butt has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. 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. Thank you. ... disco spinster   talk  23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "joy" of using a shared IP. God, I wish there was a way to persuade whoever else uses this to also use it constructively so that they don't ruin it for the rest of us.  --63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Public holidays in Romania 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. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
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 Black History Month, 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: Black History Month was changed by 63.3.1.130 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-03-04T23:50:04+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (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. TreyGeek (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- aktsu (t / c) 22:28, 17 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.