User talk:195.92.67.71
|
|
- This IP address is regularly used by User:Nick Boulevard, as well as other contributors
| Contents |
Allegation of vandalism
Hi, if it happens again, you can try reporting it to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Have you thought about logging in so you have a user name? I'll keep an eye on the page. If it continues, the user can be blocked, but it seems he is on a dynamic IP, so is likely to come back despite a block. Angela. 17:45, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Bloomin Heck, this place is like a warren to me, i have only just seen your reply by chance because i wanted to see my ip address and what it held, now i have i am confused, obviously i can see my edits to the Birmingham page etc, but why is there stuff relating to other crap which i havent even looked at like 'peadophile' and so on? This place is starting to really confuse me, i would really apreciate a reply here so i will check back later but i will ask it on the Birmingham header of your page,
Thanks again Nick.
- The IP address 195.92.67.71 seems to be registered to a POP in Watford belonging to Energis. If you have a dial-up Internet account, you will be assigned an IP address at random from a pool of addresses every time you dial up. While you are not using your account, someone else unknown to you could be assigned the same address. This is a disadvantage of editing Wikipedia anonymously. -- Heron 11:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Libertarian socialism
You are breaking the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, constantly reverting Libertarian socialism. Try to reach consensus by discussing the issues on the talk page. Claiming the other party does not listen to discussion is not a valid argument to not attempt any discussion at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I am not a sysop myself, but I have listed the page on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and Wikipedia:RC patrol. You both need to dicuss the issue on the talk page, if you can't seem to reach consensus it might be useful to visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please DO sign your comments ~~~~ on talk pages, it is impolite and makes following a discussion very difficult. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Three revert rule warning
Please note that we have a three-revert per day rule for any given article. If you don't stop reverting this article to-and-fro, both of you may be temporarily blocked from editing. -- The Anome
Analysis of Bigley video
I'm not terribly keen on your personal major edit of what was a stable version of the account. The direct links, while offensive to some, did enable readers to judge for themselves what was being shown - particularly that the video, with its obscured viewpoint and continuity jumps, does not unequivocally show Bigley's killing in real time. Besides, it's a primary source; Wikipedia can do better than just repeating, as you've done, what other news media say their reporters saw in the video. RG (Comment moved here from Slim's Talk page)
- I removed this part of the article, because it sounded odd, yet you've put it back in saying it's crucial. Could you say why, please? It wasn't clear to me what was being said. I haven't watched the video, because I did watch Eugene Armstrong's and couldn't stand to see another one. But I have seen stills, and his beheading does not appear to be completely hidden by the kidnapper's legs in the stills. Slim 04:47, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.