User talk:2604:2000:2FC0:F:813:742B:B93B:CC8C

Welcome!

Hello, 2604:2000:2FC0:F:813:742B:B93B:CC8C, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not change spellings of places in articles from the consensus English-language spellings to some other spellings like you did in the article on the Donbass. If you disagree with the consensus, you could raise the issue on the various article talk pages.

If you disagree with the concept of the English language having its own words for places, well, tough. Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce your own made-up spellings of places. In the article on the Luhansk People's Republic you changed "Ukraine" to "Ukrainia". Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The name Ukrainia is commonly used. Also, the alternate version Donbas was itself given in the article.

February 2019

Hello, I'm Wham2001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Presidents of Germany have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Wham2001 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Novorossiya, you may be blocked from editing. - Altenmann >talk 01:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kuban Oblast. - Altenmann >talk 01:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally replacing "in" with "during"

Please don't unilaterally replace the preposition "in" with "during." While they are sometimes interchangeable, in some cases you made the sentence more awkward. For instance, in this edit, a native English speaker would not say "it was created during 1860," but would rather say "in 1860." If you continue to make edits like that, you'll blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

this is a cold blooded vandal since november 2018 in/during is only one of his cheap tricks. All his edits must be reverted without s3cond thought. - Altenmann >talk 02:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward or not, I had my reasons, but if you don't like the style, you will change it back, won't you? I don't do "revert wars". As for vandalism, I don't think that meets the criteria even for disruption, since after I finish editing a page, I don't keep changing it back. Some of my changes I believe are genuinely better English or clear up confusion etc.; at least those could be left alone.

You were blocked because you did exactly what you were warned not to do after being given a final warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't read & were unnecessary (see below for why). .... Well thanks for taking the time to review Huon, though I don't agree (except perhaps for over-using "during" somewhat). As for the messages, if the Wikipedia rules concerning courtesy, good will etc. are going to be unenforced or unenforceable I think few people will bother to read them except those who like to argue.

Blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:35, 4 March 2019 (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).

2604:2000:2FC0:F:813:742B:B93B:CC8C (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Changes to pages were made in good faith, were certainly not vandalism and when reverted by others were not pursued further. As evident from my talk page some of my critics were impolite and arbitrary, as for example using the word "tough", meaning "too bad if you don't like it"; also I am "cold blooded" etc. I don't usually discuss the reversions because such comments as that indicate they will not be discussed rationally, and because no matter what I say another editor will simply revert my changes anyway. If my changes don't "stick" I don't see the point of arguing about them or reinstating them just for spite. Really, it's so easy to revert what you don't like, I don't understand why editors as some of the above cannot be more tolerant.

Decline reason:

You were notified that your edits were inappropriate and continued anyway. That you worsen different pages is not a reasonable defense; that's no better than doing it to the same page twice. We shouldn't have to keep cleaning up after you because you don't even read the messages left for you. Huon (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2019 (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.

You were described "cold blooded" because you calmly and silently disregarded what several people told you not to do . I assumed you are a vandal because I have seen quite a few "researchers of wikipedia" who did what you do in order to "test the response of wikipedia". Also several of your edits had nothing to do with style/language imppovements, such as replacing "russian empire" with "russian republic". As for preserving your "good edits", you made lots of them unnoticed in pages which obviousy have close to none watchers. Only several pages were reverted by others for precisely same reasons you were warned. However they did not bother to notify you and did not bother to check your other edits, and you, being a "drive-by" editor, did not bother to ask why you were reverted. Threrefore a huge number of your edits were left unverified. I dont have my whole life inside wikipedia, and since you lost my trust for good, I did not bother to meticulously edit all of your several-month work. Notice I left some your edits intact.

I know some people are introverts or have serious mental medical issues regarding talking to other people. However wikipedia is a fundamentally collaborative project. If you do not want to TALK, fine. But then you have to LISTEN. Otherwise blocking remains the only way of communicating with you about your questionable edits. - Altenmann >talk 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your last edit demnstrates both good comprehension of the text (including figuring out the proper meaning of sloppy parts of text, which is difficult to infer from written by a non-native speaker) and a good command of English. Therefore if you were not a "sneaky vandal" or " wikipedia tester", I fail to understand your past behavior. - Altenmann >talk 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I don't bother reading comments which look simply catty or insulting. Actually, yours do, but as the one above also has a respond-able item in it I'll try to respond to it: replacing "russian empire" with "russian republic" (I forget the page-- Novorossiya?) was the correction of a factual error which seemed so obvious from the context that it was probably just a typo-- if you reverted that then please re-read that part (if you want to). But the great majority of edits I've ever made were simply stylistic, and don't need to be verified (just reverted if you don't like them). I mean replacing a phrase like "the war broke out" with "the war began", which is in my opinion less slang-ish, more dignified and simply better English. The only type of edit I should have avoided was over-using the word "during", which I realize seems awkward to many people and which I think is why I was blocked. OK, point taken, though I still think "during" is superior to "in" at least for a range of time (such as "during the 19th century"). As for your understanding of my behavior I meant what I said-- I don't like to argue, especially when it isn't going to make any difference, and phrases like "cold-blooded" (i.e., I am a reptile) are a good indication that it isn't going to make any difference. Basically you're saying that my recent good edits (the ones you like) confirm that I'm a sneaky vandal... see? I can't win. I saw a Wikipedia rule about assuming good intentions somewhere. I try to show people what I think is a better style and if they don't agree and they revert, well, I hope that at least I've made someone think about style for a moment. I edit as a sort of side-line as I research and when I'm done with a page I'm usually done, at least for a very long time; the information is the main goal, not feuding about a page.

Thank you for yor response. Ovce you started talking, I see you are a nirmal wikipedian. You sjoul have done a week ago. I have my own drawbacks, one of them limited patience. Now, as a penance, I will review my reverts. Unfirtunetely, slowly. Nobody else edits these articles anyway.- Altenmann >talk 03:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While in an during may be interchangeable, the major difference, which if violated is an eyesore, is that a momentary event or one of definite duration requires "in" (he was born during 1836, sounds really weird) ("the battle of Blaukunft was held during 1835" sounds plausible, but this is even worse, because it leaves an impression that it took the whole 1835, while in fact in was on November 2-3.). I hope you now understand my frustration with your mechanical in/during conversion. - Altenmann >talk 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.