User talk:99.64.168.136: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:03, 14 June 2011

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ugaritic grammar, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

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: Ugaritic grammar was changed by 99.64.168.136 (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2010-03-16T13:32:27+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Kangaroo rat worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Tetracube (talk) 16:45, 30 April 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.

Vandalism to Mu (lost continent)

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. ClovisPt (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blank this page

It may be your own talk page, but you're not allowed to blank it. See WP:DELTALK. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 23:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gehenna has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Gehennom. If the external link you inserted or changed was to an external Wiki, then please note that these links should generally not be included (see 'links to avoid' #12).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Religious cosmology, you may be blocked from editing. Jess_talk|_edits 20:56, 12 August 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 is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Diving bell, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RexxS (talk) 18:54, 16 August 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.

Follow-up: I see you've now redone your edit, making a nonsense of the article. If you have problems with even basic English, please consider contributing at a Wiki where this is not such a disadvantage - see WP:Competence is required. I'd strongly suggest you self-revert before you find yourself blocked. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who doesn't understand English pronouns or maths. Spiders are not neuter.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly making unconstructive edits, such as editing Diving bell to make nonsense of the English. Whether this is deliberate vandalism or innocent incompetence is not very relevant - either way you have persisted with unconstructive edits even when advised of the problems. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2010 (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).

99.64.168.136 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There were no repeated unconstructive edits, and the English wasn't nonsense. The page had been nonsense were it not for my edit. And the above earlier warnings were also wrong and reverted over, so the final warning wasn't called for. Your other reversion of the other page, with reason as not helpful, was a lige and which I consider your vandalism.

Decline reason:

While I'm a huge fan of stretching the language, if for no other reason than to annoy the British, your addition to the article is complete gibberish. I can't unblock if you're insisting on resuming your unhelpful edits and calling corrections vandalism. I would encourage you to continue your discussion with RexxS until you are comfortable with contributing in the English language. Kuru (talk) 20:09, 16 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.

(edit conflict) Ah thank you for engaging at last. The pronoun you are attempting to use is called a "relative pronoun" who/which/whose. It is used to introduce a sub-clause and is not interchangeable with the "personal pronouns" his/her/its. I'm sure you'll find no-one agreeing with changing the original:

The diving bell spider, Argyroneta aquatica, is a spider which lives entirely under water, even though it could survive on land

to your version:

The diving bell spider, Argyroneta aquatica, is a spider which lives entirely under water, even though who could survive on land

nor the other six pieces of nonsense you've perpetrated on the article. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not interchangeable? Prove it. Who is the definite common-gender pronoun. "Who is it?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk • contribs)

I'll do my best to be helpful. The use of who/whom/which/whose to form a question is called an "interrogative pronoun". You can't use them as possessive pronouns as you tried to do here:

The spider collects air in a thin layer around whose body, trapped by dense hairs on whose abdomen and legs.

Please take the time review that sentence. The words in bold need to be "possessive pronouns" and you have his/her/its/their to choose from. Please pick the one that suits your idea of a spider's gender, or ask your teacher for advice tomorrow. My preference is the original:

The spider collects air in a thin layer around its body, trapped by dense hairs on its abdomen and legs.

but you may prefer her if you think all the spiders are female. English doesn't have a gender-neutral singular pronoun, so sometimes people prefer their as an alternative to his/her, but we don't really have any other options. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not proof but assertion, and teachers don't know squat about English: http://google.com/groups?q=%2Bteachers+%2Bcracklings+%2Bgeyser&sitesearch=groups.google.com. No, I don't think all the spiders are female. They couldn't mate if they were! The gender-neutral singular pronoun is "it", you dolt! It's "it" for indefinite and "that" for definite. The gender-common singular pronoun is "one" for indefinite and "who" for definite. You don't know anything about English either.

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Sweet Track 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. 黒くろい白しろい (KuroiShiroi) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Bosphorus. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You have been blocked for 6 months for evading the editing ban imposed on lysdexia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You are not permitted to edit this user talk page. —Angr (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ~~~~

R-Ḥ-M

You appear to have a very limited knowledge of both Arabic and Hebrew, and so should be taking a suitably limited role in editing that article. Repeat after me, ح is not خ!! -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading skills are even more limited; I didn't claim they were. My edits were direct transliterations, whereas the former weren't, and wrong.

May 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 Mario & Wario 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. RA0808 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mario & Wario with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RA0808 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As explained to you previously, the addition of gibberish English to articles constitutes vandalism. Please cease these games. -Thibbs (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs is a wicked slanderer. He's the one who edit wars, who wouldn't use the Talk page, and accuses me of these. He says English is "non-english". "non-english" isn't even a word outside billiards. His beliefs and edits are delusional and destructive. He blindly follows [mis]standards when they break up the line; his agreement with the See also section leaves meaningleas dangled "-" or "--" where a comma /is/ standard everywhere. He makes me the scapegoat for his bad writing, and scolds me [and maybe others] for what he doesn't understand.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2011 (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).

99.64.168.136 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thibbs doesn't even understand what vandalism is, how English works, nor Wikipedia's policies on edit conflicts, good faith, and style. He is a slanderer, and there was no gibberish. I am not a vandal; he is.

Decline reason:

This is hardly a convincing unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 14 June 2011 (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.

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).

99.64.168.136 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

NOTTHEM? Fine, you want me to talk in passive? My edits were improvements or corrections, and they were reverted with prejudice and I was threatened with vandalism, against Wikipedia's processes and policies on conflicts, style, good faith, personal attacks, and blocks. I did not add "non-english", vandalism, or gibberish. There was no argument from the other parties to support their attacks on me; there was no Talk, rather, a slew of warning templates which cannot prove their own conclusion.

Decline reason:

While a number of your recent edits were positive, edits like this one are nonsense. If your only defense for those edits is to attack people questioning you, then I don't see any reason to believe you won't repeat that destructive behavior. -- Atama頭あたま 19:58, 14 June 2011 (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.

Are you Lysdexia (talk · contribs)? Sandstein 19:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem so. Kuru (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lysdexia was indefinitely blocked by one admin and at least one other user who conspired to break Wikipedia's revert-and-talk process, was railroaded by libel on the intent of her edits, and suppressed by the unblock email list to cover up their wrongdoing. After that, all IP edits attributed to her may be prejudicially reverted even if they would fairly pass from any other person. Here I am treated the same way. 99.64.168.136 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:58, 14 June 2011 edit Kuru (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators 200,006 edits →‎June 2011: note ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:03, 14 June 2011 edit undo 99.64.168.136 (talk) →‎June 2011 Next edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:

	:It would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoshi_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=433423009 seem so.] [[User:Kuru\|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru\|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)		:It would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoshi_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=433423009 seem so.] [[User:Kuru\|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru\|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
			:lysdexia was indefinitely blocked by one admin and at least one other user who conspired to break Wikipedia's revert-and-talk process, was railroaded by libel on the intent of her edits, and suppressed by the unblock email list to cover up their wrongdoing. After that, all IP edits attributed to her may be prejudicially reverted even if they would fairly pass from any other person. Here I am treated the same way. [[Special:Contributions/99.64.168.136\|99.64.168.136]] ([[User talk:99.64.168.136#top\|talk]]) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)