Welcome!
Hello, Orphadeus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! -
2/0 (
cont.) 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Metric expansion of space. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 ( cont.) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Your first post wasn't censored, it was moved to the bottom to the talk page, where all all new messages go. Assume good faith.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Book of Revelation, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wysprgr2005 ( talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I would not have thought that it needed to be explained that new messages do not go into the archives of older discussions, due to the name "archive."
Also, I see you added unsourced info to the Gospel of Mark and Book of Revelation articles, even though I explained the citing and sourching guidelines. Once again: * Always cite a source for any new information added to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
I'm still assuming good faith. This may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there are still guidelines (which you have been notified of more than once), which represent site-wide consensus. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what "archive" means in different dictionaries. You do speak English, right? Talk page archives are for older, finished discussions. Adding new posts there is disruptive. Adding new posts in the hopes of that the post will be read and responded to is stupid. If I see this kind of nonsense again, I'm going to treat it as vandalism. It was pointed out to you multiple times what the archives are for, where to post on talk pages, and yet you still didn't get that posts go on the bottom, and restored your post to the archives. This, combined with your basic failure to understand no original research no matter how many times it's explained indicates to me you clearly have no idea what you're doing here, and you're making me strongly question your ability to comprehend basic communications. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Book of Revelation, you may be blocked from editing. Those Bible verses would work for exegesis, but as I explained earlier:
I will be clearer on the last part: we only report notable views, or relevant views by notable individuals or groups. I have already explained notability guidelines before. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at extinction (astronomy). Your edits have been reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Modest Genius talk 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Extinction (astronomy), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 22:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
People might find it interesting to know I was blocked for up to and including section 4 here. Theres a technical further down the page. Its sections 3 and 4 they don't like. Orphadeus ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Orphadeus ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As for 'I didn't hear that', check the discussion page of [[ the article]. If you've got some time its a good one. Theres numerous unambiguous references from me (as there are in the article), no references from them (some of the same folk who have been posting threats on this page), and 'I didn't hear that'. Orphadeus ( talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is your problem? Your additions to Extinction (astronomy) have been explained to be wrong by multiple editors, some of them professional astronomers. That even laypeople have pointed out that you're using those sources wrong should show just how wrong you are. You were blocked by an uninvolved editor, who did not unblock you. How do you not understand that your actions are inappropriate?
I have no choice but to believe you are a troll, or so mentally deficient or damaged that you are incapable of being anything but a troll, and I will treat you as such from now on. You are only going to waste your time on this site, just leave. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Its fair to point out that Orphadeus was banned indefinately for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.106.244 ( talk) 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Jane C. Charlton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
...William 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Orphadeus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! -
2/0 (
cont.) 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Metric expansion of space. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 ( cont.) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Your first post wasn't censored, it was moved to the bottom to the talk page, where all all new messages go. Assume good faith.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Book of Revelation, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wysprgr2005 ( talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I would not have thought that it needed to be explained that new messages do not go into the archives of older discussions, due to the name "archive."
Also, I see you added unsourced info to the Gospel of Mark and Book of Revelation articles, even though I explained the citing and sourching guidelines. Once again: * Always cite a source for any new information added to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
I'm still assuming good faith. This may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there are still guidelines (which you have been notified of more than once), which represent site-wide consensus. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what "archive" means in different dictionaries. You do speak English, right? Talk page archives are for older, finished discussions. Adding new posts there is disruptive. Adding new posts in the hopes of that the post will be read and responded to is stupid. If I see this kind of nonsense again, I'm going to treat it as vandalism. It was pointed out to you multiple times what the archives are for, where to post on talk pages, and yet you still didn't get that posts go on the bottom, and restored your post to the archives. This, combined with your basic failure to understand no original research no matter how many times it's explained indicates to me you clearly have no idea what you're doing here, and you're making me strongly question your ability to comprehend basic communications. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Book of Revelation, you may be blocked from editing. Those Bible verses would work for exegesis, but as I explained earlier:
I will be clearer on the last part: we only report notable views, or relevant views by notable individuals or groups. I have already explained notability guidelines before. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at extinction (astronomy). Your edits have been reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Modest Genius talk 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Extinction (astronomy), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 22:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
People might find it interesting to know I was blocked for up to and including section 4 here. Theres a technical further down the page. Its sections 3 and 4 they don't like. Orphadeus ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Orphadeus ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As for 'I didn't hear that', check the discussion page of [[ the article]. If you've got some time its a good one. Theres numerous unambiguous references from me (as there are in the article), no references from them (some of the same folk who have been posting threats on this page), and 'I didn't hear that'. Orphadeus ( talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is your problem? Your additions to Extinction (astronomy) have been explained to be wrong by multiple editors, some of them professional astronomers. That even laypeople have pointed out that you're using those sources wrong should show just how wrong you are. You were blocked by an uninvolved editor, who did not unblock you. How do you not understand that your actions are inappropriate?
I have no choice but to believe you are a troll, or so mentally deficient or damaged that you are incapable of being anything but a troll, and I will treat you as such from now on. You are only going to waste your time on this site, just leave. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Its fair to point out that Orphadeus was banned indefinately for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.106.244 ( talk) 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Jane C. Charlton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
...William 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)