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.

So what's it all about? Got a beef with this brand/model? I have no interest whatsoeever in motorcycles and just removed the tags because they didn't correspond to anything really in the article, and there wasn't any active discussion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the disruption on Talk:Communism. You are not contributing constructively when you spend your time complaining about otehr editors. In fact, you seem to be way worse than the editors you complain about. Pointless threads will be ignored and finally archived. You don't have to do anything. Discuss the topic, not the editors. OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page On Our Own (Bobby Brown song) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Crazynas ^t 08:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, this is a big enough site you and I don't need to be continually conflicting. I am focused on content, substance, not the personalities of other editors, so if this is your intention as well, shouldn't be a problem. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the possibly vain hope that the person who wrote on the talk page of Sokratis Giolias actually reads this, please visit the talk page again, you provided good commentary which could be useful to the article, I merely need some clarification. Cwill151 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did do, nothing much seems to have happened since it appeared on the front page but it's less than a day and as I stated we will have to await developments in the case. From what I can gather, the essential truth does seem to be that 1) he was a defiler of public discourse for personal gain/notoriety and 2) this was the cause for his assassination. but these will have to be properly sourced and I don't know them to be facts, the language issue compounds the problem or it would probably be more or less clear (to me anyway). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Society was changed by 72.228.177.92 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-08-20T10:21:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever error the bot made doesn't seem to have affected the content so ignoring this. I suppose the mention of genus Homo is what was taken as an obscenity. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Führerprinzip do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Fyyer  08:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I landed on the page today, the EL § had just the one stormfront.org link with no caption text, just was fixing but then a better (and prior?) list appeared. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted it to a slightly older revision that had more proper external links. :)  Fyyer  09:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A Macedonian (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is a mistake. Obviously I'm not a vandal and I can't find any recent changes I've made by this IP that have been reverted. No idea what it's about and ignoring it.72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, please accept my apology. A Macedonian (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Labor unions in the United States, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, there was nothing wrong with edits I made and most of them were retained. This editor is expressing depressingly typical behavior. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, cosmic rays are definitely NOT "stable particles" as mentioned in the article. In fact the former text was gross and simple minded, stomping all over the wave particle duality and stating that cosmic rays are particles which ere stable in the earth like electrons and protons which is just plain false, cosmic rays aren't stable, trapped in ordinary matter, like the subatomic entities that are justifiably viewed as particles, anywhere. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have major misconceptions. "Stable" means not subject to spontaneous decay, like pions, muons, or neutrons are. Those things are found in secondary cosmic rays, but they don't last long enough to travel between stars, or even from the Sun, even with relativistic time dilation. So they are NOT in primary cosmic rays. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with wave-particle duality: all stable and unstable particles too have wave characteristics; this is a totally unconnected property.

Protons, electrons and their antiparticles are stable on timescales far longer than the life time of the universe (so long that we don't even know if protons ever decay). On earth, both these particles and antiparticles can be kept trapped in accelerator storage rings for a day or more, and that's not limited by stability, but by the mechanics of the trap. They last hundreds or thousands of years between stars-- perhaps millions. They compose nearly all primary cosmic rays. Nobody has convincingly found an unstable particle in a primary cosmic ray. Do some reading, please. SBHarris 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]