User talk:71.191.36.194

I often add material from Internet Archive's text archive, simply because I often browse their daily new additions. If you have a problem with content in a particular article, please deal with it on the specific article talk page. Internet Archive is not SPAM and adding links to it is no different than adding links to Project Gutenberg (which is actually only one sub-set of Internet Archive, the umbrella organization for the Open Content Alliance), Internet Archive has thousands of links on Wikipedia. Also, just because I use an IP address doesn't mean I am a second class Wikipedia citizen, please treat me with respect and courtesy I am more than capable and willing to defend and fight for what I think is right - see the essay "Editors Matter". -- 71.191.36.194 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note from El_C
Hi. Please do not add that link across multiple entries; it appears to be promotion of said link and is not permitted. Thanks. El_C 03:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved. Internet Archive is not promotional material, the old public domain scholarly book in question was linked in only two articles, both of which are relevant. If there is a problem with content in an article please deal with on on the article talk page and not on user pages. -- 71.191.36.194 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note from Stephen Burnett
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stephen Burnett 06:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved. Internet Archive is not "inappropriate external links" or spam, there are thousands of links to Internet Archive on Wikipedia, it is frankly one of the best public domain Open Source resources on the Internet and Wikipedia should have many more links than it does. -- 71.191.36.194 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note from B. van der Wee
This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:71.191.36.194, you will be blocked from editing. B. van der Wee 01:15, 17 September 2007 (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.


 * See note on your talk page and the essay "Editors Matter", this is a prime example of what drives users away from Wikipedia over trivial and inconsequential matters, please be a better Wikipedia citizen and not be ridged with rules for no apparent reason, -- 71.191.36.194 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pissarro image
I'm not sure what your question is--the image I see is of a small landscape, apparently painted by Camille Pissarro on a palette. Thanks, JNW 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently a good samaritan already saw to this. JNW 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoi Polloi
Please refrain from adding factually incorrect information.--   Avg     18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like most well meaning and good faith editors, I don't normally go around posting inaccurate information intentionally - your suggestion otherwise is insulting and uncivil. Deal with it on the talk page. There are a number of sources that call it Latin. Those sources may be mistaken, I may be mis-informed, but please refrain from suggesting my edits are not made in good faith. -- 71.191.36.194 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that I'm Greek, it's my native language and I don't have any doubts whatsoever where this phrase comes from. If you had read the article even once you'd have seen references and detailed history of the phrase. If you also claim to be a seasoned Wikipedia editor, you'd know that you should support any major change in content with a reference. So altering verified content with inaccurate information is borderline vandalism. As you see I didn't use a vandalism warning, although I had every reason to do so, exactly because I assumed good faith.--   Avg     20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting what your saying, I said I was misinformed, I was wrong, that is not the issue. How can you say you assumed good faith, and at the same time consider it borderline vandalism? Your talking out of both sides of your mouth. Look, I've dealt with Greeks before on Wikipedia and it usually been an unpleasant encounter, I'd prefer you no longer post on my talk page. -- 71.191.36.194 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving you're a biased editor by characterizing a whole nation. Don't worry, I won't post here again, unless it's for putting a warning/vandalism template.--   Avg     21:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt your threats to tag my page for vandalism are real. I don't want any trouble but if you continue to threaten and harass me I will no choice but to seek help from an administrator. And BTW I said Greek Wikipedian' in my experience, there is nothing biased about that, it is my observation, and frankly you are doing nothing but re-enforcing it. -- 71.191.36.194 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)