| Revision as of 09:23, 31 August 2008 editPiano non troppo (talk | contribs)Rollbackers53,873 edits Message regarding Urheimat article using MWT← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:30, 31 August 2008 edit undoPaul Barlow (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers93,539 edits →August 2008Next edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages{{#if:Urheimat|, as you did to ]}}. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages{{#if:Urheimat|, as you did to ]}}. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Gibberish== | |||
| Your edits are just as much gibberish as your comments on my talk page ("Do you relay believe that somebody was lived in Norway 12000 ago"). Either you don't understand how nonsensical this comment is, in which case you have no place editing articles, or you have an agenda about which you are not being honest, in which case you have no place editing articles. ] (]) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:30, 31 August 2008
I very appreciate that the orange baner do not distrupt me. Is this a special future for me, other have it to? !76.16.176.177 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I just looked in edits of one reverter to see that he wrote something here. If you have sucha a special tretment from hostsite of almostsensopedia drop me a line waldek4i6@gmail.com.
Hi! Mentioning fringe theories 99% historians and linguists doesn't give a damn about is not allowed just like that, especially not in "synthetic" articles like that of the ethnogenesis of Slavs were there is just a small paragraph dedicated to the whole subject. Only the mainstream views should be presented there, and pushing fringecruft there would be violating WT:NPOV --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Science is not a US electoral race. One rigt against 10^999 dumd is enought. Do you realy lok who not what? Those above are just question but you are wrong in your estimation of % . Just check citation index. 76.16.176.177 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
ps. Who payd for attention ?
kurgan
Please stop propagating irrelevant fringe theories to articles or else you'll be blocked from editing WP. Thanks --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- What I "think" is irrelevant, and what is relevant is the mainstream opinion, and fringe theories like NDT and PCT (which are complete bullshit IMHO) do not deserve any kind of mentioning beside in their respective articles, especially not in 5-sentence paragraphs of general articles. When I was writing "nonsense" in edit summary I was in fact referring to what you wrote in PSl. article, namely that the Proto-Slavic reconstruction aproaches are higly dependent on aplaid model of PIE origin. - which is complete nonsense, and the addition of newer theories pushing back date is completely irrelevant to an article of linguistic topic.
- Believe it or not, most (>95%) Proto-Slavic changes can be traced to the centuries they operated, some even decades, based on toponymics and borrowings from/to other languages, and you don't need a reference to any other IE language outside Slavic family to reconstruct Late Proto-Slavic, just pure comparative method on Slavic etyma. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, blindly following "revert then talk" mode is a one-way ticket to getting blocked, regardless of whether you have or have not arguments on your side. Don't you think that at least it should be fair to discuss the mention of this fringe theories on the talk page before adding them in the article? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Kurgan hypothesis. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Kurgan hypothesis. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no way Wiki editors are going to allow your unsourced edits to stand. If you continue, your IP address will be blocked from editing. Any way you look at it, there's no point. Nobody's going to see your edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
dont wory. There are sources. just read below. 76.16.176.177 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Kurgan hypothesis. Nsaa (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
look now is ok. 76.16.176.177 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Kurgan hypothesis. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are not only inappropirate, they are incoherent. You're hurting your point-of-view, not helping. There's no purpose in what you are doing, and your edits will soon be erased by one editor or another. This is pointless. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Distruptive ? It is obvious taht you distrupting my editions (you did not put a single bit in text just what is easy you reverting me). But anyway - now is saturday so you may be not at work. Just look at biger picture the reedietd Kurgan hypothesis. If by the way any idea will crossing your mind please elaborate herebefore you distrupt the now more balanced article.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Urheimat. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Gibberish
Your edits are just as much gibberish as your comments on my talk page ("Do you relay believe that somebody was lived in Norway 12000 ago"). Either you don't understand how nonsensical this comment is, in which case you have no place editing articles, or you have an agenda about which you are not being honest, in which case you have no place editing articles. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)