User talk:195.217.52.130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Welcome!

Hello 195.217.52.130, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Currently, you are editing anonymously. You can continue to do so. You are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, but doing so will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 195.217.52.130). There are many benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) (not on articles, please); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

I see you have been contributing very constructively in some of our classical music articles. I am always glad to find someone else doing this as it is my main interest here. Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 11:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to second the welcome and the encouragement to create an account. Hope to see you around! :) Cheers, Andrewski 22:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Reading School

Thank you for experimenting with the page Reading School on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

0L1 Talk Contribs 17:25 2 11 2006 (UTC)

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ymaohyd". The reason given for Ymaohyd's block is: "attack account".

  • Decline reason:

Please wait for the block to expire, thanks. -- WinHunter (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

Thanks for fixing up the typos in my Eye movement in music reading article. Tony 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And furthurmore, thank you doing it all in one edit, instead of 20... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirkwall

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.PeaceNT 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.•CHILLDOUBT• 15:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archepiscopal -> Archiepiscopal

I noticed you were changing the spelling of these words. "Archepiscopal" is a legitimate spelling for the word, so I would kindly request that you stop making these changes. (You can respond here.) Gimmetrow 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please stop changing spelling for no reason. Thank you. Gimmetrow 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop and discuss, or you may be blocked. Gimmetrow 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In which form of English is "archepiscopal" the preferred spelling of "archiepiscopal"? I was merely changing a misspelt word. Microsoft Word (although perhaps not the most reliable spell-checker!) corrects to archiepiscopal in both English and American English forms. Furthermore, Oxford University Press (publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary) does not recognise your alleged "legitimate" spelling (see http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=archiepiscopal&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact and http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=archepiscopal&branch=&textsearchtype=exact). So I stand by my corrections. 195.217.52.130 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Tim Duncan. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ytny (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Ranjit Fernando

Please stop adding non-encyclopaedic and point-of-view details to the article. Your changes have been reverted. —Moondyne 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Digby Jones (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Ogdon

Thanks for your contributions — but please always give citations and edit summaries (and don't give the citation in the edit summary — that's ephemeral; it needs to go in the article. If it's already covfered by the existing sources, please explain that in the summary). Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis

If you'd actually taken the time to look up the word, you would've realised that it is actually ficticious and not "genuine", as you wrote. I won't leave a vandal tag. But if I find that you've made any other defamatory errors in other articles, I will begin adding tags. ScarianTalk 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, friend, after looking through some of your other edits and some of the comments here, I've come to a content conclusion. Is this is a shared I.P. address? Some edits are fine and even great, whilst others aren't so wonderful. I sign this message with some lingering confusion. All the best. ScarianTalk 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Dunstaple

Okay, one very important point I have to make is the source that is offered next to his name... It states on the source that he is probably from Dunstable. Do you know what speculation is? Do you know that one cannot put speculation on Wikipedia? Offer a better source or it will be challenged and removed again, please. Thanks. ScarianTalk 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in your condescension and, to be honest, downright rudeness - I can see from comments of other Wikipedia contributors on your own talk pages that this appears to be one of your specialities. I humble suggest you moderate your tone. However, ignoring this, Margaret Bent, a notable musicologist and Dunstaple expert of over 25 years' standing, also presumes that he came from Dunstable in her 2004 article in the Oxford DNB: Dunstaple [Dunstable], John (d. 1453), composer, is of unknown origins, though his family presumably took its name from Dunstable in Bedfordshire, to which spelling modern scholarship has often adapted his name, despite the contemporary preponderance of ‘p’, including in his autograph signature. Her presumption flows from the fact that very many other contemporary (ie, mediaeval) figures took their surname from the town from whence they came. There are also well-documented links between the composer and St Albans Abbey, which is only 13 miles southeast of Dunstable and therefore the nearest musical cultural centre. I have added a link to the DNB article to both the Dunstable and John Dunstaple articles. 195.217.52.130 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digby Jones

Keep up the good work. : ) Please add to wikipedia by referencing: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php Its very easy Chendy 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ross. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rrburke(talk) 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.