User talk:4WhatMakesSense

May 2013[edit]

Bdellium[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Bdellium has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Bdellium was changed by 4WhatMakesSense (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966733 on 2013-05-03T06:58:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

Hello, 4WhatMakesSense, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4WhatMakesSense, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi 4WhatMakesSense! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Dead[edit]

Hello! Thanks for your contribution to Book of the Dead, it is great to see more editors interested in Egyptology! I have moved your comment onto the Talk page for the article, at Talk:Book_of_the_Dead#Comment_on_main_picture, as we try to avoid putting comments inline with the content of the article. I've not heard that interpretation of the scene before but if it's supported by some sources we ought to put it into the article. Do you know of any? Many thanks, The Land (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported[edit]

I have reported your behavior at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. You can reply there if you wish. Zero^talk 14:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for persistent disruptive editing. You should read WP:CIR, WP:NOR and WP:IDHT for details. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

4WhatMakesSense (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What Edit was disruptive? 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All of them, from what I can see. You need at least a basic ability to read and write in proper English to be able to contribute to this project. I see what appears to be poor machine translations, most of which make little sense (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

4WhatMakesSense (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Might we pretend this is Star Trek, and I am cast as Data. There aren't enough facts in your reply to comprehend a solution. And calling someone a Robot doesn't address that there is at present a Human Desire to Contribute to Humanity. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC) I invested time into each article and used the preview button; even made preview my default setting after Blake Kite posted (Wikipeidia should have made it the default without people having to become proficient in their menu API). ~ ~ ~ Bwilkins, stating "All of them" isn't constructive feedback and may even violate the spirit of your page [ BWilkins ] and personal Wiki Credo. Please help me understand so that my efforts, which have been respectful and have opted for the Talk page before updating the main article, may improve.[reply]

The only Delete was an attempt to remove an unquoted slander calling someone a "medieval Arab". Arabic people did not exist in a Medieval period of Time, they lived in a Golden Age http://www.fasebj.org/content/20/10/1581.full of Moorish Science & Wisdom. What Europeans with the Crusades and Plague endured they call Medieval Europe. In the Arabic countries it was a time of prosperity, wisdom, and wealth. So the usage shows ignorance to history, and places the blame of religion ignorance in knowing what Bdellium is, on someone outside the religion, then uses offensive historic phraseology which the editor themselves chose, without making a direct quote. Their article link also does not have said source page.

Decline reason:

Obviously you have a personal theological agenda; this is not the medium in which to air it, and your edits are therefore disruptive. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why is the block template a temporary block template when the block is indefinite? Just curious, no big deal. Or perhaps, it isn't and I'm mistaken. Just a possible FYI. World Traveller101 02:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I accidentally used the wrong one, and then tweaked it. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. OK. Just curious. World Traveller101 17:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked[edit]

It is fairly clear that you do not have any idea of the actual function of Wikipedia - your claims would be better off on your own personal webpage or wiki. I have therefore revoked your talkpage access. Any further unblock requests should be directed to arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]