User talk:70.49.242.106

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

If you don't believe that that book was used as a reference, please discuss it with User:Alex Bakharev, who added it originally. Rmhermen 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was used as a reference, it's up to him to cite it in the article. Otherwise, it doesn't belong there. It's not something I believe, you dolt, it's something I know for a fact - that the book is not cited in the article, and therefore there is no reason for it being listed. 70.49.242.106 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is cited in the article; it is in the reference section. That is how we one method of citing things used until very recently. Have you read this book? Can you confirm that it is not a source? Rmhermen 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I don't know how I could say it more plainly. If it is going to be listed as a reference, the article has to tell the reader what information is from that particular book. The information in the article is contained in at least dozens of similar crappy books on memory. I've read several of Luria's books, and all of the information contained in this article is from him. 70.49.242.106 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually your wrong, it does not need to state explicetly state in the article what bits are from that cite, the fact that the original author put the cite in there means the idea, concepts or other important information was placed in that article using that citation as a reference. Unless you are going to discuss it with the original author and determine why that citation is there you need to leave the page alone AdamJacobMuller 02:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you meant to say "you're wrong." Well, you've lost any credibility you might have had - wait a minute, you had none to start with! 70.49.242.106 02:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


In addition I am going to remind you of the policy that wikipedia has against personal attacks if you persist in both attacking me personally, calling me names and/or removing this information from the article in question I will report you to the administrators and you will be blocked from editing wikipedia AdamJacobMuller 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But you *are* a dunce! That's objective fact. 70.49.242.106 02:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever your opinions of other contributors may be, please comment on the content, not the contributor. Wikipedia does have a strict "no personal attacks" policy, so though I encourage you to continue discussing the issue at hand, please do not make insulting comments about other contributors. Thanks! --Viridian {Talk} 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --JoanneB 10:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please save your advice for someone who cares. If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that *my* edits have been reverted many times. No one seems to care about that. My guess is that if it's done by one of your fellow super-geeks (not nerds - nerds are smart), it's okay. 70.49.242.106 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

! Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — FireFox • T [17:37, 12 March 2006]

This is the problem with standard warning messages. If you were paying attention, you'd have seen that what I added was not nonsense. Despite the problem some people have with the terms "midget" and "little person," they are still acceptable, and are much more descriptive. For example, a dwarf is someone whose limbs and features not properly proportioned, while a midget is just someone who is extremely short, but has normal proportions. Some people find it offensive, but not all of them are "little people." Let the change stand. 70.49.242.106 17:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not about to let some snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears 15-year-old punk kid tell me what to do. Especially an uber-geek like you. 70.49.242.106 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Due to violation of the three revert rule, you have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. — FireFox • T [17:44, 12 March 2006]

Sorry, dolt, but you'll have to try harder. 70.49.242.106 17:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.49.242.106.html"