User talk:Professor London

Unblock

 * You need to give us the information concerning the blocked name, we can't know which block is causing you a problem unless you tell us. Please see Username for details of the username policy. --pgk( talk ) 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User's SN is "Sysop fuck." User Page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sysop_fuck&action=edit --Professor London 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Should be unblocked now. Please drop me a line at my talk page if this works; this is my first time undoing an autoblock.  Mango juice talk 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you rule. --Professor London 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocked again. Reason: "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Sysop fuck". The reason given for Sysop fuck's block is: 'Violation of the Username policy, likely bad-faith account'." Am I going to be blocked everytime this guy decides to log on? --Professor London 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We're experiencing some problems with the autoblocker, yeah. He shouldn't be able to log on any more. Give me a few minutes, I'll look into it. DS 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done --pgk( talk ) 07:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again
What else is new?

What in the world did I vandalise?


 * You were caught in an autoblock of 4.243.215.217. I have reblocked it with correct options and you shouldn't be affected now. Happy editing! Misza 13 T C 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Professor London, 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 want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.150.208.140.13 16:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A look at my contrib hist will show nothing but constructive edits. Pelase elaborate. Professor London 11:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ahh, I see you are a vandal. Professor London 12:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LaVey Vandalism
Professor London, 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, and 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. The Vandalism you are accused of is known as Blanking (| see Types of Vandalism) in which you removed information that cited several sources. a discussion of the dispute is on the Anton Lavey discussion page. Please discuss edits that remove parts of the article (esp. one's that have sources cited).AlexanderLevian 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sources for LaVey's supposed lack of involvement for Rosemary's Baby are quite questionable. One is a Wikipedia page, the other an entry for IMDB, both of which are easily edited by users. Oddly enough, the role of the Devil in Rosemary's baby is uncredited. Could you please provide a better source? If you feel my edits are vandalism, you are free to report them, however, my contrib hist will show nothing but constructive edits. Professor London 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse Me?! I cited five sources (three IMDB entries, an autobiography of William Castle (the film's producer), and Micheal Aquino's "The Church of Satan"). and no wikipedia sites are named as sources, as a matter of fact I held off from citing "The Satanic Screen" as a source due to to question of the authors integrity. You can look for yourself here. Please look again and look through ALL of the sources cited, not just the first couple (and check that you're reading the current version in that I have no idea how anyone could think any of those 5 come from a wikipedia entry). I do hope we can reason like gentlemen. Because of the rumor's popularity I feel it necessary to mention in his Trivia section. once again, I hope we'll reason this like gentlemen. thank you.AlexanderLevian 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation is also being handled by another Wikipedia user. I will leave it in his hands for now... Professor London 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
I've contacted the administrator who blocked that IP address for comment; hopefully someone should be back to you within 24 or 48 hours. My apologies for the wait, and please bear with us in the meantime. Thanks. Luna Santin 06:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Professor London 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein
Good call! The phrase reads like a bad pun now. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Carl Levin
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.

This edit is not relevent. Abe Froman 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He's the article's featured person; how is it not relevant? Professor London 17:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

This edit is pejorative nonsense. Please do not re-add it. Bring it up on the notice board, if you feel I am in error. Abe Froman 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to the Carl Levin disussion page. Professor London 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding that nonsense to Carl Levin
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. 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. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the 3rr, as I have read your user history. I am not edit warring, I changed the article back ONCE. You need to read the content of the templates you copy and paste. Professor London 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you reverted it twice: Please stop reinstating this nonsense. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) nonsense edit
 * 2) first revert
 * 3) second revert

Okay, my mistake. That last edit was done in haste; I thought it was the discussion page. So I apologze for that one. Professor London 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Buy Nothing Day
Please read WP:EL. Blogs are not considered to be legitimate external links. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it does say "Normally avoided." Furthermore: "...except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article" I hope I don't sound disagreeable, but it seems like an O.K. link to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Professor London (talk • contribs).


 * The distinction is that the link in question isn't specifically referenced by the article. The link is just some random person (a MySpace blog) writing about the subject of the article. If we didn't maintain this rule, then every random blog on the Internet would be fair game as a link for some article here, ad long as it talked about the subject of the article.  You can see how that would quickly get out of control. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Make sense. Thanks for elaborating.Professor London 05:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gramophone record
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if it is your ultimate intention to revert them. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. --PhantomS 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Please refrain from making edits like this unless you are trolling for a block. Your serious edits to help improve encyclopedic content are welcome. -- Infrogmation 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone did this from my computer at work, and for that I apologize. I'll be sure to pay better attention to my log-in status.Professor London 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)