User talk:2.25.45.249

That's part of the etymology. It could be clearer, but it's not 'vaguely related German words'.Sumanuil (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the article. Nothing about this appears in the article, thus, it cannot be included in the lead. See WP:MOSLEAD. Even if it could be, it is incomprehensible. The meaning would need to be made clear. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but how is the end of the etymology incomprehensible? That's just how those sequences are written. I can make it a bit clearer. I see no reason to take a random chunk out of the entry. Sumanuil (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You made it a little bit more comprehensible, by using whole words instead of obscure abbreviations, but you are still bizarrely putting something in the lead which does not appear in the article. Why are you doing that? Do you understand that the lead is a summary of the article? 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How is it bizarre? Almost every other similar article has the etymology of the name IN THE LEAD or elsewhere near the beginning. What on Earth is the problem with a complete etymology? If you don't like it, please take the whole thing out, not just a random section.Sumanuil (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What are you not comprehending here? Only material that is in the article can be summarised in its lead section. Put the fucking etymology in the fucking article and not in the fucking lead section, ok? 2.25.45.249 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to swear. I just wanted to know why, if you disliked it so much, why you were just removing part of it. And plenty of articles have etymology in the lead, like here.Sumanuil (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm swearing because I'm fucking fed up of people who haven't bothered to understand the basic tenets of encyclopaedia writing destroying attempts to improve articles. You clearly do not comprehend what a lead section is supposed to be. For the nth time, it is a summary of the article. Anything which is not in the article must not appear in the lead. But of course you reverted to fuck up the article, again. Want a shit encyclopaedia? You got it. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You are obviously not listening. There is no point in taking a random chunk out of a sentence, whether you believe the sentence belongs or not. So what if it's a summary of the article? That doesn't mean it doesn't belong. Look at other biology articles, like the one I helpfully linked to. THEY ALL FEATURE THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE NAME. It may need to be moved, but taking out part of it doesn't help.Sumanuil (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower fire

Perhaps you'd like to discuss your large scale deletion at Talk:Grenfell Tower fire? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No. No discussion is required to remove material which falls so obviously and embarrassingly far short of encyclopaedic quality. Your restoration of it was deeply misguided. Did you actually read any of the text you put back? 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read all of it. If you want to adjust it, by all means suggest improvements. Perhaps you yourself could elucidate, at the article Talk page, "what policy or guideline you think supports your action"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you're lying, but if you actually did read it, and you thought it was somehow a good thing to put it all back in the article, you're utterly clueless. Go away and learn the basics of what encyclopaedias are and how they should be written. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not lying. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then, you are utterly clueless. Inept editors like you will be the death of Wikipedia. Now I see you got one of your pals to block me, so you could keep your article in its shit state. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

False claim of block evasion.

Decline reason:

As you are using this talk page to make personal attacks, I have revoked your ability to edit it for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Every time you're blocked it's a false claim of block evasion. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny how you link to someone saying something different then. Another idiot troll I guess. Hope you enjoy it. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You complain about what you consider extraneous information and then just remove half of it. It's rather the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion.Sumanuil (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

---