User talk:Smokedoctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

July 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Earl Dodge, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Suva Чего? 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sons of Confederate Veterans[edit]

Smokedoctor, I certainly don't want to get into an edit war, but the information added in the article Sons of Confederate Veterans, about the abolitionist viewpoint seems highly irrelevant in this article, and most certainly in the spot placed in the article. Shouldn't an unnamed abolitionist's view of what did or did not cause the Civil War be better placed in the article, American Civil War? And if it is relevent in the SCV article, couldn't we find a better way to word the statement and incorporate it into the article? The statement itself just seems to be hanging out on a limb by itself and seems to interrupt the smooth reading flow of that part of the article. Sf46 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Smokedoctor. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Paradoctor. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Zeno's paradoxes because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Stop this nonsense. Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Likely block[edit]

Your editing at Zeno paradox is disruptive and will result in a block unless you stop reintroducing the material in question; see WP:3R. Tkuvho (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no disruption. You clearly do not understand the philosophic point under discussion. Please withdraw your threat.


Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zeno's paradoxes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Read WP:PROVEIT. Do not add again without proper citation. Paradoctor (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add material not verifiable to a reliable source to Wikipedia, as you did at Zeno's paradoxes. The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This triple changing of reasons, from "not constructive," to "disruptive," then to a yet totally different reason, "not verifiable," three different stories objecting to the same information, may be symptomatic of psychiatric disorder, "ideation concrete and blunted," for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedoctor (talkcontribs)
Perhaps you mean concrete ideation and blunted affect, which at any rate are not disorders but symptoms. Your talk of other editors' "inadequate education" [1] suggests you will be not "unable to understand the simple philosophic points" [2] at WP:NOR. Anyway, the idea that foot size has some role [3] is absurd, since the paradox works just as well if two paper airplanes, or bullets, or BBs, or ions (in a vacuum, attracted to a charge at one end) are substituted for Achilles and the tortoise. Who is this Pletten person anyway? -- math and physics attract a lot of cranks. EEng (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)