User talk:142.151.177.134

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] RE: Neva

I do not think that you understand. In a stub article, you can write as much as you want. The stub comment is simply stating that the article is not worthy of being called an article. Thus it is only the stub of a possible article. That does not prohibit you from putting in the effort to discuss tha t the statement is folklore and providing in the discussion at least a reference to where this information legitimately appears. Rather, since you seem to know something about the subject, this is your opportunity to shine...add content...just make it sound content. Right now, it sounds made up and it is written poorly. I hope you do something to fix it. --Richss 23:2--142.151.177.134 05:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)7, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Is it poorly written BECAUSE it sound made up or is it just poorly written in general?!

--142.151.177.134 02:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"In fact, many Russians who get their water from the Neva claim that to this day, you can still taste the Rasputin, and that he left minerals which made the water good for the stomach."
A bit of both. I am not aiming to offend or attack. I just came across an edit that didn't sound solid. If this is an actual and valid statement, you shouldn't have any problems at least stating a source or a relevant part of your background that would indicate that this is in fact a true statement. Grammatically, this does not seem completely up to par with an article either. I would be willing to help if I knew that the statement was at least legitimate. --Richss 03:54, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

But that's impossible! The information is false! But I think it should still be there.

--142.151.177.134 05:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--142.151.177.134 05:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:142.151.177.134, with edit comments such as "Revert to restore silly postmodern nonsense" it is clear that you know that what you are doing is deliberate vandalism. You are accordingly blocked from editing. -- The Anome 15:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since you're at it again, you got blocked again. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] animal article

Please stop reverting the animal article. Your additions are considering too point-of-view for the encyclopedia. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 04:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your repeated reverts are bordering on vandalism. Please note that all biologists, including creationists, consider Homo sapiens to belong to the animalia; it's a simple matter of taxonomy. In a scientific context, therefore, "animals" means "all animals, including humans". However, in common speech in a non-scientific context, "animals" generally means "animals other than humans". -- The Anome 07:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I concur; you must stop repeatedly changing the Animal article to insert your own point of view. As you have tried this at least around seven times, and each time your changes are quickly removed, it should be clear that the Wikipedia community does not agree with your statements. Please discuss this issue on the talk page before you change it again; I will comment further there. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 20:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, do not continue your repeated reversions. You must discuss these changes first. People are unlikely to accept your changes if you attempt to force them through instead of coming to an agreement. Also, please do not use misleading edit summaries—your "revision summary" was neither a summary of a revision nor a revision of a summary. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 21:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 64.63.214.172 06:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 64.63.214.172 06:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cease your repeated reverts immediately

User, please stop trying to push your point of view through by force. There are far too many others who disagree with you and who are watching what you do. You've attempted to change the Animal article many times, and each time people quickly change it back. Several people, including me, have warned you on this talk page to stop. Wikipedia is a community. I've tried multiple times to discuss this on the article's talk page, but you refuse; you continue to change the article without regard for the consensus of the other contributors. If you feel strongly about this, discuss it on the article's talk page. Do not change the article again. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 04:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --fvw* 00:42, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/4/2/User_talk%7E142.151.177.134.html"