User talk:159.105.80.141: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:46, 12 February 2010

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your IP address, 159.105.80.141, is registered to Vermont Department of Libraries and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.

Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}.

In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here.

Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address may be blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

Antisemitism

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Antisemitism. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. --Sefringle 04:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a hint as to what I said - not able to find it ( you must have a copy). Thanks.If you are looking for personal attacks, I believe you will find several that precede any comment I make - though I usually try to shot down their arguments instead. You can paste my comment that seemed to hurt someones feelings here if possible.

Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on 9/11 conspiracy theories: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I am referring to this comment. Thank you--Dcooper 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Duesberg hypothesis for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages again

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Andre Chad Parenzee for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page comments

Hello. Please take a look at the talk page guidelines. Article talk pages are intended solely to coordinate improvement of the related article. They are not a forum for general discussion, rumination, argumentation, or for your musings on Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, "trivia", etc. A brief review of your contributions reveals a long-standing abuse of the talk pages and no article contributions. Please contribute constructively, according to the talk page guidelines, or seek another forum. At this point, given the long-standing nature of the abuse, I'm going to block this IP address if the abuse continues. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incessant abuse of article talk pages. You may create an account and log in to edit, but anonymous editing from this IP will be disabled. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Belzec extermination camp, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Crazy Boris with a red beard (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2008 (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.

Ongoing use of talk pages

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Peter Duesberg for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Peter Duesberg for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for consistent and refractory misuse of article talk pages. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Back again

Your first edit back from your block was to make a personal attack on the admin who blocked you. That is not a good sign. You know that incivility, especially aimed towards other users, is not tolerated here on wikipedia. If you continue to make disruptive comments on talk pages, you will be blocked. You have been blocked in the past for this same offense, so consider this your only warning. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Duesberg ..others. How large a sample would it take, and primarily how much would it cost, to go to Africa and test "AIDS" sufferers and see if they actually had HIV or AIDS. Maybe this has already been done. This would clear it up once and for all. Also has a similar sample been done in the USA etc - I recently read that up till apprx 1985 or 1990 the USA diagnosis was mostly from an untested "definition". It would be interesting to see how many "AIDS" suffers in the USA had HIV and how that compares to the entire population. Someone must have done this reserch already - it would be totally corrupt not to have.

Jewishvirtuallibrary - Treblinka article - it states the Bug river is very shallow and narrow - I guess this kills the "sub up the river" story. Funny how these websites are not better coordinated.Someone hoping that noone ever went to the Bug River and saw how navigatable it was/wasn't.

I checked the Duesberg ? for myself - I can not find any real research. I saw one very beautiful presentation - very nice graphs,very convincing except the text to go with the graphs mentioned extrapolated data...... no tests, nothing with any scientific weight. There must be some data from Africa using real lab testing done by serious professionals, I find it hard to believe that $billions were/are/will be spent on extrapolations from visual diagnosis - unless this is all politics. Will keep checking for a serious report. Don't hold out if you know of one.

I've noticed something that appears to becoming a trend in the wiki world., something that Jimbo, etc should be apprised of. In serveral articles some editors are compromising on information that can't contradict by moving the nasty argument to another site - shutup and go there. Of course "there" is somewhere that doesn't exist or is so far out in the boonies that noone will ever see it - I think the idea of the move. When an argument is moved it probably is too close to home. I noticed this on a Global Warming article "well maybe that should be moved to ..." . Another famous move is to say "this is not a forum", I think that is true but only if you dispute the "correct position". Otherwise they seem to "this is not the forum" all day - usually the dullest or most trival gabbering imaginable - Jimbo should be forced to read some of it - I may put some on a disk for him to browse.

Revision as of 18:47, 11 February 2010 edit 159.105.80.141 (talk) →Back again ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:46, 12 February 2010 edit undo 159.105.80.141 (talk) →Back again Next edit →
Line 57:		Line 57:

	I checked the Duesberg ? for myself - I can not find any real research. I saw one very beautiful presentation - very nice graphs,very convincing except the text to go with the graphs mentioned extrapolated data...... no tests, nothing with any scientific weight. There must be some data from Africa using real lab testing done by serious professionals, I find it hard to believe that $billions were/are/will be spent on extrapolations from visual diagnosis - unless this is all politics. Will keep checking for a serious report. Don't hold out if you know of one.		I checked the Duesberg ? for myself - I can not find any real research. I saw one very beautiful presentation - very nice graphs,very convincing except the text to go with the graphs mentioned extrapolated data...... no tests, nothing with any scientific weight. There must be some data from Africa using real lab testing done by serious professionals, I find it hard to believe that $billions were/are/will be spent on extrapolations from visual diagnosis - unless this is all politics. Will keep checking for a serious report. Don't hold out if you know of one.


			I've noticed something that appears to becoming a trend in the wiki world., something that Jimbo, etc should be apprised of. In serveral articles some editors are compromising on information that can't contradict by moving the nasty argument to another site - shutup and go there. Of course "there" is somewhere that doesn't exist or is so far out in the boonies that noone will ever see it - I think the idea of the move. When an argument is moved it probably is too close to home. I noticed this on a Global Warming article "well maybe that should be moved to ..." . Another famous move is to say "this is not a forum", I think that is true but only if you dispute the "correct position". Otherwise they seem to "this is not the forum" all day - usually the dullest or most trival gabbering imaginable - Jimbo should be forced to read some of it - I may put some on a disk for him to browse.