This IP address, 208.38.59.163, is registered to TELUS Communications Inc. of Edmonton, Alberta. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time.
If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).
This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.
The reason 411Mania.com is used is that a better website does not have a review up. The usual site Slam Sports did not place up a normal review. So 411Mania.com is its substitute. The Ice T thing is in the event section. It isn't notable enough to be in the lead. Ice T's fame has slowly died since the early 90s.--WillC21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project has stated that 411Mania.com is a relable source. Which means it is good enough to use as a source for a reception. If Slam Sports did a real review then I would use that one. Plus no one in the project has said that 411Mania.com isn't alright to use it the lead. Ice T is on Law and Order SVU. Yeah he is a big name but him not being there isn't notable enough to be in the lead when he was only pushed by promo videos. He wasn't at a Impact or anything along those lines and TNA didn't even acknowledge him not being there. That is a footnote. Reception is more important than Ice T not showing up.--WillC22:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your insults about me being a so called fan boy do not matter to me. That are irrelevant and mean as much as the flying spaghetti monster does to me. Slam Sports do not have an official Hard Justice 2008 review. As a result, 411Mania.com's review of Hard Justice has been placed as its substitute until Slam loads a official review or a better source comes along like a star rating by Dave Meltzer.--WillC02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (208.38.59.163) is used to identify you instead.
Hello. I noticed on two occasions over the last two days you have reverted this version of the "I'm on a Boat summary from:
"The video opens with Andy Samberg pouring cereal into a bowl. To his delight, a coupon for a "FREE boat ride for 3!" falls out of the box. As he is deciding on whom he should bring, the shot opens to reveal his breakfast companions, Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone. Samberg first choses Schaffer, but skips over an anxious Taccone in favor of the previously unseen rapper T-Pain, who is also eating with them.
to
The video opens with Andy Samberg pouring cereal into a bowl. To his delight, a coupon for a free boat ride for three falls out of the box. While selecting who will go with him, Samberg chooses bandmate Akiva Schaffer but skips over bandmate Jorma Taccone in favor of the previously unseen rapper T-Pain.
I am willing to the concede on the spelling change (which was taken from the video) and the briefer phrasing. But, the sentence "While selecting who will go with him, Samberg chooses bandmate..." is not grammatically sound. To select and choose are synonymous, so you cant do one while doing the other. Additionally, this phrasing doesn't really make clear the first sight gag. I made a minor adjustment to the wording to be grammatically sound while accurately describing what occurred. It reads as follows:
The video opens with Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone and Akiva Schaffer eating breakfast together. When Samberg pours cereal into his bowl, a coupon for a "free boat ride for three" falls out of the box. Samberg ultimately chooses Schaffer to accompany him, but skips over Taccone in favor of the previously unseen rapper T-Pain.
Thanks for your message and for your willingness to communicate. I read what you wrote and like your revised wording, which, for the sake of discussion, is:
The video opens with Andy Samberg, sitting at a table with bandmates Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone, pouring cereal into a bowl. To his delight, a coupon for a free boat ride for three falls out of the box. While selecting who will go with him, Samberg picks Schaffer but skips over Taccone in favor of the previously unseen rapper T-Pain.
However, I still take exception with the "while selecting...he picks," which is the basic version of that sentence. When one says "While," they indicate something else occured, like "While selecting, Andy rubbed his chin," or "While selecting, Jorma was smiling". But really, Andy's selection or choice was instantaneious, just pointing his finger. He decided for a while, though, in the moments preceding his selection or choice. But they were two concurrent events; he didn't select the guys while he decided; he selected the guys after he decided. So I just as soon leave that out since there would be little point to saying "After deciding who will go with him, Samberg picks Schaffer..." Even though I think its not necessary, I wouldn't be opposed to the following wording:
The video opens with Andy Samberg — who is sitting at the kitchen table with bandmates Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone — pouring cereal into a bowl. To his delight, a coupon for a free boat ride for three falls out of the box. After pondering who will go with him, Samberg picks Schaffer but skips over Taccone in favor of the previously unseen rapper T-Pain.
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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
was civil, simply pointing out hypocrisy of other editors (who engaged in attacks of non-registered users) who were also violating policies with zero punishment. It was WLU who was violating deletion policy and making personal attacks on "anons" and MuZemike who started making demands and acting uncivil. Plus the block time is far too long- a WEEK?? There were no slurs or other blatant personal attacks that would call for even close to that long of punishment.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Consensus at WP:PW was that finisher nmames are note italicised in prose, only in list. As it turns, out, this isn't reflected at WP:PW/Style Guide, so I'll mention it over at WT:PW. That being said, almost no articles here use italics for finisher names in prose, and consistency is needed. Any occurences of finisher italics in prose should be be removed. Thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I've made a fairly large jackass out of myself, haven't I? Could have swore you had added the italics, not removed them. Checking again reveals otherwise. So again, sorry. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Firstly I apologize, While using Huggle I rarely read what dosen't show up in red and your edits looked to wrong. They were not vandalism. However, calling the other "unintelligible" and telling me I need to have my "head examined." Goes against WP:CIVIL. You should comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing. --SKATERSpeak.18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)@Skater:[reply]
Hello! In your interest, I have closed the dispute on the Wikiquette alert page. If there are anymore further attacks by that particular user, please notify any administrator on the WP:AIAV or myself so further actions can be done; since this issue has been posted as a dispute; a temporary block might be issued. Don't worry, this message will be posted on the talk page of all the users involved in the matter. Thank you! Happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox)01:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... it is generally inappropriate to link terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, ... common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided), and dates ...
I'm sorry you weren't able to understand our conventions regarding linking. If there's something there that you don't understand like "Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter" or "major geographic features and locations" or "terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia", please feel free to ask and I'll explain it to you. Proper nouns are things that we capitalise, simply being a proper noun is not a reason for linking. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and sorry I "threw out the baby with the bathwater" with the reversion of "U.S.A." - I do agree the full style is better and I ought to have spotted that. As for linking currency, I guess you could make a case that some other English-speaking readers, (like Australians for example) might not appreciate how much $1 is, but does the link to the article USD actually help them? Maybe a section link to USD#Exchange rates could help some readers - but not the Australians! When considering linking pounds, the article provides a conversion of sorts, by supplying an equivalent rate in pounds sterling for us Brits - so absolutely no need for a link there since the readers it's intended for already know what pounds are. It's the same kind of reasoning as when we provide conversions for feet and metres - we don't link those since one or the other will be familiar to the reader. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you bother to search for? I already found it and now I want YOU to find it. It's not going to kill you to search for it on the CRTC's website. єmarsee • Speak up!23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You being uncivil isn't going to solve anything. I know how the site works, and I'm sure that you do as well. If you want to escalate this, I'm fine with that. If you want to keep it civil, fine with me. єmarsee • Speak up!00:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was making valid edits to articles, which were being reverted with no reason. I even began discussion w/ editor Clarince63 over Bikram Yoga, which was been deleted from his talk page. They responded to me that they were sure Bikram Yoga isn’t' called hot yoga, even though hot yoga redirects to Bikram Yoga!! All my other edits (this is a shared IP, I'm talking about the edits done today) are totally valid- like removing crystal balling from LA X, which is apparently what I was banned for. To be banned for any length is ridiculous, an entire month seems like a slight exaggeration considering I didn't even break 3RR.
Decline reason:
You appear to have engaged in an edit war. Whether you technically breached the three revert-rule is not relevant. The only exception to the edit warring policy is reversion of blatant vandalism. Unfortunately, this ip address has a long history of disruptive editing, and it is impossible for us to tell if you are one of the previous users who caused it to be blocked or not. Blocks are escalated over time, and given the block log from this address a month is a reasonable length of time. You could avoid that particular problem by creating an account. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Actually account creation was blocked also, so no I can't! So the facts that the edits in question that caused the block were not blatant vandalism by any sane rationale is also irrelevant? And the abuse of the admin for falsely declaring something vandalism will also be ignored? Can one consider the last edits to get a warning (ex- "fuck my asshole") to the ones involved today (ex-"commonly called hot yoga") to be in the same universe? The first is obivously vandalism, the second is obviously NOT. Yet the blocked occoured on the latter under the false charge of "vandalism". Even so, you can't give someone the penalty for something they did previously (or possibly didn't do)- there's a reason they didn't give OJ the sentence for muder on the robbery charge. It's called logic. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The last warning was a month prior. The last edits done around the time of the block was 1 good edit which still stands (Cabin Boy), one good edit that was reverted by Djsasso thus making that article incorrect(TNA TV title, you might want to fix that btw if you truly care about the site and its quality), and one apparent good faith edit (Gretzky, wasn't me so IDK if really done in good faith, but it appears that way & I follow WP:AGF). None of those edits, nor any of the previous dozen+, appear to be vandalism as Djsasso claimed was the reason for the block. I'm honestly curious, do you guys actually do a real review when these blocks are contested because it seems one admin will do it and everyone else just follows in lockstep. I would really like to know your thought process on why this block should remain because the last actual vandalism according to WP:VAN I can see on this shared IP out of the last 50 edits over almost a monthlong period was from the Supertramp edit 7/16. Especially for a shared IP I'd say that was pretty decent, hardly deserving of any ban let alone a THREE MONTH one.
Decline reason:
Good edits do not balance out vandalism edits, you cannot make 100 good edits then have "fun" on 5 pages. As more vandal edits are made so the warning level increases, when we get to level 5, it's a block. As for the length, in nearly all cases, vandalism block lengths increase with each block, this is now the forth block and the length is not unexpected, I would expect the next block to be 6 months and then 1 year - there are plenty of IPs blocked for a year on Wikipedia. And we do look at the edits made when there is an unblock request, we don't just follow the result of the last request (although we will read the reasoning in that as well). As for Gretzky, I don't think for one minute that is a good faith edit - the data was referenced, and was then changed without any reasoning given. Note that blocks are not there as a punishment, they are to protect Wikipedia - there are limited amounts of resources to revert the vandalism that some editors persist in making. Where you find yourself blocked from editing then the only way forward is to create an account. Ronhjones (Talk)23:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The point of the flags for the various non-American chefs on Iron Chef America is to better inform the reader about their origins, but as their culinary influence. We had a similar issue with Susur Lee: do we flag him as from China (where he was born) or from Canada (where he nationalized)? In the end, given his food, China was the better choice. Similarly, the Canadian flag misses a key element of Hughes' culinary style, thus the use of the flag of Quebec. It isn't a political statement, does not intend disrespect to the Canadian flag, and certainly doesn't intend to mislead, just to better inform. If you have any further issues with the flag in use, the standard procedure is to leave the edit intact and open a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello good friend! There's really no point in vandalizing Wikipedia... countless users have tools and programs that spot vandalism, and we have almost a constant lineup of users who volunteer to monitor harmful edits, as well as automated bots that can locate vandalism and change it back almost instantly. Vandalism just like yours has been done countless times in the past, and we know how to deal with it. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and sure, it might be tempting to totally fuck an article up, but that's not what we're here to do. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner that doesn't make you look like a complete idiot, feel free to do so, otherwise, it's best to just leave it alone. That saves you the time of making pointless changes, and saves me the time of reverting those changes just as fast, if not faster, than you make them. Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoy using, and maybe editing, Wikipedia.
And if you have any questions, feel free to direct your inquiries to my delicious talk page; where we can sit and make banter over a lovely cup of green tea. BelloWello (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ron Swanson with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Marek.69 talk01:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to The Climb (song). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ron Swanson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you want to make this change, take it to the talk page to gain consensus. Until you do that it will be considered vandalism and reverted.Karl 334☞TALK to ME ☜18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ron Swanson
I love the line "I was born ready. I'm Ron Fucking Swanson." as much as anybody else. It's a funny joke. But I'm sure you understand that Ron was not implying that the word "Fucking" is his middle name, and citing that episode as a reference does not work as a source. It's not his name. I'm sure your intentions are good here, but please refrain from making that edit again in the future, as it is vandalism and you can get in trouble if you show signs of repeated intentional vandalism. — HunterKahn19:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol A fair point. I'd love it if an episode one day revealed that his full name is, in fact, legally, "Ron Fucking Swanson". But until then... — HunterKahn17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
But then you wouldn't be notified of my reply. I just clicked on the link that said "TALK to ME" since I wanted to talk to you, not myself. Since I'm here, why is the initial "tar sands" moniker not require a source but my edit does? The only source in the header is called "The Oil Sands Of Alberta", why the double standard? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would be notified of anything posted on this talk page because its in my watch-list. Second, there are multiple sources in the article that refer it as the "Athabasca Tar Sands", just no inline citation on that exact sentence in the article. I suggest you take this to the talk page of the article if you feel so adamantly that it should be changed. Once a consensus is gained, then it can be changed. Until then, please don't make POV edits to the page as that can get you blocked again. Karl 334☞TALK to ME ☜13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tad creepy you're watching my talk page, but whatevs. You'd better not falsely accuse me of vandalism again though or it'll be you that may get blocked. Be sure to reread WP:VANDAL before throwing that label around again. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that a place has no tar can't possibly be a POV edit. It's not an opinion, either it has tar or it doesn't. If it does that makes me wrong, not POV. Hilarious because the whole "tar sands" name is nothing but a POV term. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fernando Zylberberg, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. J36miles (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
February 2015
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Alberta with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Justino Bambino, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hello, 208.38.59.163. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Justino Bambino".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Justino Bambino}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gpkp was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Everett Drozd and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Everett Drozd, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, 208.38.59.163!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gpkp[u • t • c]04:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 208.38.59.163. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Everett Drozd, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
