User talk:132.241.245.49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Grazon. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log.

Be careful: An important message - PLEASE READ

---

Please be extremely careful when adding in information that it does not involve defamation (if you don't know what defamation is, read this). Comments that defame an individual may leave you open to being sued by them. Your status here, whether as a signed on user or as an anonymous IP, would not protect you. Someone you defame could get a court order instructing your server to supply your details to them. They could then sue you for damages. Remember, while Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act protects Wikipedia from being sued for defamation, it may not protect the person who posted any defamation on a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore the Board of Wikipedia has ruled that Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, [personal information] data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. (Full information on Wikipedia privacy policy here)

This box has been placed on your talk page because another Wikipedian suspects that, perhaps innocently, you may have defamed someone in your contributions. Please recheck your edits. Do not make allegations against someone unless you have verifiable, independently-sourced evidence. Don't rely on hear-say, rumours, or things you believe without proof to be facts. Wikipedia requires sources for all claims.

If you have defamed someone, you may be blocked without warning from editing Wikipedia. If you find that you have inadvertently defamed someone in an article, do two things:
1. Remove the defamation from the article immediately.
2. Hit this link and leave a note on that page saying that you accidentially left defamatory claims in named article. (Don't repeat the claims. They will be able to see from your edit removing them what they were.) A developer will then delete the claim from the page history

Once that is done, and the defamation is gone completely from our records, the problem should be solved.

Hall Monitor 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FTR

Isaac Asimov called himself a Humanist The Elmo pupeteer died of AIDS and the Katherine Harris footage is very creep

[edit] I'm confused

Why am I getting a "temporarily removing block"? is this to see if I won't "vandamize" anything for 24 hours?

Basically it's because from whatever you've done, some people apparently feel you might be setting yourself up for a lawsuit, so somebody blocked you apparently and put up that big old box. Homestarmy 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't understand what you meant. It's possible that some admin might be about to extend it, or for some reason their letting you off :/. Homestarmy 01:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image had no source information and was thus put up for deletion. That's why it's been removed from the article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koresh

You have been persistently trying to push lines into the David Koresh article about how he "raped" girls. I could point out again that Category:Statutory rapists better fits the accusations made against Koresh than Rapists; that he was never convicted of this crime; that you are going against consensus, which is that this needs to be discussed first, yet you have not even participated on the talk page; and that you are out of step with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, others who have tried this tack have not dissuaded you.

Instead, let me point out that other people can be just as anti-Koresh as you, yet consider some other allegation to be the pinnacle of his perfidy. For instance, someone could think that his worst crime was being a "cop-killer" who "gunned down dedicated, heroic peace officers in the line of duty." To another, his worst failing could be "abusing the trust others placed in him, to lead them into mass suicide." To a devout Christian, his great sin could be that he "deceived his followers with his satanic lies, condemning their souls to eternal hellfire." Another person might think that his most evil crime was not "raping" children, but murdering them: "...containing information about how this MONSTER fried his OWN BABIES!!" That is, your emphasis on his "rape" of "little girls" as his central, most heinous crime is a POV even within the anti-Koresh POV. So stop pushing it.

I've taken a look at your contribs, and I have to agree with the person who commented that you seem to take an inordinate interest in the sex lives of historical figures. I also see that you have been trying to brand Muhammad as a child molester, so it can't be said that you're only picking on piddly little cult leaders. However, do you really think this is productive? Are you going to go to the Jerry Lee Lewis article and categorize him as a "rapist," or call King John a "pervert," because they married 13-year-olds? I also saw that in one case, involving Leonardo da Vinci, you actually reversed a claim about his sex life, on the grounds that there was not enough evidence. Do you have different standards of proof based on how well you like a famous person? --WacoKid 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubber dick

Yeah, but your wording, "The rubber dick waving stenographer" seems wrong. I know it's true, but is he most known in his movie for the fact that he waved a rubber dick? ;) --Khoikhoi 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe. :p I suggest that you phrase it differently so it doesn't get reverted by someone else. --Khoikhoi 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Hello 132.241.245.49. One of your recent edits was undone by an automated bot as likely abuse of editing privileges. Our welcome page provides information for new users who would like to contribute. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you feel you have recieved this notice in error, please contact the bot owner. Thank you for your interest in our project. // Tawkerbot2 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Are...

I may be, why do you ask?

[edit] re:LOL

Yeah, I'm from Nevada City, actually. And any man who runs away from Michael Moore on Fahrenheit 9/11 does suck.

[edit] re:I've got to ask

Of course, there's no other place to have gone.

[edit] Escape!

2005

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

I left my reason for the removal in the "discussion section" of Bill O' Reilly controversies...The section seems insignificant in the grand scheme of things...not a controversy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bairdso66 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 March 2006.

[edit] Re: Hurricane Floyd

That small peice of information is fairly small. Remember, the article is about Hurricane Floyd, not about the Political effects of Hurricane Floyd or Government Criticism of Hurricane Floyd. Hurricanehink 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to argue. I just want to explain. Someone reading a Hurricane Floyd article probably doesn't care too much where the president was going before issuing a federally declared disaster area. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just coming from a neutral point of view. Hurricanehink 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL OK, just checking ;) Hurricanehink 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. stubblyhead | ^T/_c 05:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Steve Filson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Not vandalism. I apologize, but on first glance your addition seemed out of context with the rest of the article. As you have already been accused of several instances of vandalism, I simply assumed that this edit was also unconstructive. You also did not provide an edit summary, which makes it very difficult to determine what is and is not vandalism. Using edit summaries, even on minor edits such as this, further allows other editors who are more familiar with the article to readily see what changes have been made, so that they can revert them if necessary. Typically if a user provides an adequate edit summary, I will not revert the edit as vandalism (unless it is beyond any doubt obvious vandalism), but will instead leave that in the hands of the chief editors of the article. Please always use edit summaries in the future. I have restored the page to your version, and I apologize for reverting your edit as vandalism. Thank you for notifying me of my mistake. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Clerks II, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Yamla 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's sexuality

"No consensus" in a deletion discussion means that administrators can't delete the article. Users can still merge, split, or edit however they want. If you undo a merge in the future, please provide a better reason than "no consensus". Gazpacho 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANSWER as a "Trotskyist organization"

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to ANSWER. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Kalkin 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dogma

Regarding your recent edits to the Jay and Silent Bob article. I really fail to understand how Dogma isn't canonical. It is referenced in both Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (When Jay, talking about Morris Day and Time, says "Handed down by the Lord Herself . . ." and the appearance of Alanis Morrisette as God after the credits) and Clerks II (When Rosario Dawson's character yells from the roof, Jay responds with "Lord?").

As to the claim multiple people in JASBSB having watched it; which characters and when in the movie did they view it, or reference viewing it? I ask because, I have no recollection of this taking place, and I have seen the movie many, many times. However, I DO remember Alyssa Jones mentioning that the Bluntman and Chronic Movie is better than Mallrats. Does this mean that Mallrats isn't canonical, or not part of the Askewniverse?

Even if your edit was factual, its current form is not encyclopedic. It lacks neccessary commas and formatting. So please, if you want to include this section, provide actual reasons why it should be included, and write the sentence properly. "Country" Bushrod Washington 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]