User talk:68.123.4.199

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page High-temperature superconductivity 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. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://youtube.com/watch?v=c3asSdngzLs) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
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) 04:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

[edit] Pronunciations

Hi,

Pronunciations in wikipedia are supposed to be English unless otherwise stated. Please don't change them. It's going to take a long time to undo all the changes you made to the element articles! kwami (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is otherwise as these words are not English but Latin or New Latin.
Unless stated otherwise. And they are now English as well. If you want to add the Latin pronunciation (if you can find a version that anyone can agree on, that is, which is not an easy thing to do), fine, but the English comes first. kwami (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no English pronunciation as these are not English words! Are you blind? There's no use for these incorrect pronunciations, which abound inconsistently.
And where do you get yours without attribution, such as your three different sounds for the "i" in untrinilium?
If you wish to attack me rather than work with me, I'll simply ignore you. Sorry I bothered. kwami (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You should stay at Asperger's syndrome and other subjects you understand. I'll revert your pronunciations, such as for untrinilium's, which are completely without attribution—as they look lik yours.
On second thought, I won't ignore you. You've already been blocked for abusive behavior; keep this up and I'll block you here as well. kwami (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, blocked for the admins' and other users' abuse, as my edits/corrections/comments complied with wiki's and grammars' rules. As does the rule where any of your original research may be removed at any time.
And my grammar and spelling are very good, and I'm not a he, you blind delusional vandal. All of your reversions against my edits are wrong; you obstructd the perfect translations and transliterations between Hellènic, Thewdish, and English genders and vowels. Every one of your reversions is borne out ignorantia, and you call mine bad?! You don't even qualify to edit on these subjects outside local pronunciations.
This account is not a sock puppet; a sock puppet is a user who pretends to be someone else, whereas I always write as my original person.
Wrong, smarty. Sockpuppets are accounts used to evade blocks and bans, and you are just that. JuJube (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are. The definition is "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is prohibited." Later-on it says sock puppets may be the means to evade blocks, but this isn't in the essential meaning.
The key phrase being circumvent Wikipedia policies. When you are blocked, you cannot edit FROM ANYWHERE until the block is done. None of your word gaming can get around that. JuJube (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course I can edit. Come back when you're not as deluded.

[edit] April 2008

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For avoiding a block and for incivility.. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As there is still (after many years) no definition for civility in Wp's namespace, this "reason" could mean anything. My ban from Wikipedia was a conspiratorial frameup and coverup of the admins' and other users' mistakes in standard grammar, fact, diction, spelling, and markup. Standard knowledh is demonstrably wrong, and harmfully-so. Many pages' mistakes can onely be realised with my mind, which is banned because it goes against the standard kent. Rather than ban the other admins and users for their mistakes, Wp lets them run the site as the world (of men) agrees with them, even when the other world (of truthes) flies against them. My banning admin wouldn't own up to his mistake after I shew him wrong; he didn't answer, so how would any admin expect me to go throuh the procedure to get lysdexia unbanned when it's impossibil if another admin looks at the case and sides with the other conspirators rather than on the truthe? -lysdexia
O look, the other [ignorant, obstructive, harmful, incompetent] admin Gwen Gale revertd my edits on the PZT compounds with the old, wrong version which claims there's zircon in PZT and "titanate" as a compound rather than a class whereof or a complex. My edit was fine; the formula is unclear. Wikipedia is full of such monsters with power, and the supereducated few must suffer martyrdom for their blind kangaroo court.
  • If you continue to make personal attacks against other editors, an admin may extend your block and/or protect this page from editing by anonymous users. Please use this block as an opportunity to review WP:CIVIL, reconsider your behavior and, rather than attacking other users, request an unblock so that you can edit productively. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism; blocked indefinitely per main account. kwami (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalise anything; I made a bunch of fixes which you vandalised over.