User talk:Moldovan0731

Welcome!

Hello, Moldovan0731, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous edits

Hi, please don't make unhelpful edits here, that got you banned form Commons as well. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm Cindamuse. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Baleen whale without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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! Cindy(talk) 00:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saltwater crocodile, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the disruptive edits

You may be banned if you continue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to numbers

Please stop changing numbers with sources. This is misrepresenting/lying about what the scientists in the listed studies said/found using their various size estimation methods. If you know of a different estimate, you must write it separately and cite your source for that information. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to size estimates in Velociraptor - can you state the page number in the 1999 paper where you are finding these numbers? Or are you simply adding together the lengths of individual bones, which is original research and also not a good way to produce a size estimate? For example, adding together the lengths of the leg bones would give a hip height that assumes the knee and ankle were held perfectly straight while standing which is anatomically impossible in theropods. I'm not sure how you would have arrived at the new weight estimate. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the length of Ankylosaurus to 10.7 meters and citing Carpenter 2004. Carpenter 2004 does not contain this data, and it appears you are simply making it up or misattributing the source. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Velociraptor. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think banning is in order. This guy does nothing but vandalism. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Utahraptor

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. There seems to be a typo in the file. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Edmontosaurus. As your edit has been reverted thrice,y ou may be banned the next time you vandalize or involve in an edit war. Abhinav—Ŧ—� 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Right, I have blocked you now as the time needed to check and clean up after your editing is greatly exceeding any useful contributions you might have. Removing chunks of text or changing numbers that are not found in the sources, thus compromising the referencing is disruptive. If you haven't figured this out in two years then I can't see how you can contribute constructively here as you are either unable or unwilling to modify your editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 May 2014 (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).

Moldovan0731 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to make useful, sourced edits

Decline reason:

And we would love you to do so. But you are not.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:32, 10 July 2014 (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).

Moldovan0731 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

[1] (The last one.)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2015 (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).

Moldovan0731 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I've been blocked because of bad edits, but please, check my edits here (sockpuppet): https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spinofan0731 I don't think these are bad edits.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You'll need to request unblock from your original account only. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:01, 28 December 2015 (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).

Moldovan0731 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This one is the original.

Decline reason:

Even if this is your original account, I don't know that we can honestly trust you with editing. You were previously blocked on this account for adding unsourced information and making generally unhelpful edits. I see on the talk page for Spinofan0731 that you were trying to add this as a source, which was seen as an unreliable source. I also don't see where you have actually commented on this page to show that you understand why you were blocked in the first place. You need to show that you understand the following:

What is or isn't a reliable source.
That it is wrong to continually add unsourced, controversial information to an article.
That you will not engage in sockpuppetry.

Offhand I don't really see where you've done much to show that you can be trusted. You were blocked and your answer was to open up other accounts, which is a pretty big sign of bad faith and makes it extremely difficult to trust you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 29 December 2015 (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).

Moldovan0731 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I found a reliable source for the height of the giraffe: Dagg, A.I. and J. B. Foster (1976/1982): The Giraffe. Its Biology, Behavior, and Ecology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida (Reprint 1982 with updated supplementary material.) Please unblock me :( I want to add that source for the recorded height of the giraffe instead of the current (Carwardine, Mark (2007). Natural History Museum - Animal Records. New York: Sterling Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4027-5623-8.), because it is also based on this one (Dagg is a giraffe expert, you know). One edit on Giraffe, and I promise for my life I won't do anything after that, but please let me add that source :(— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.11.50 (talk) 6:29 pm, 29 December 2015, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

This unblock request was made by some IP. You have to log in and make an unblock request with this account. But, to be honest, even if you do that I don't think any admin will unblock you. You are actively sockpuppeting using several accounts, which is considered highly disruptive. You have to stop sockpuppeting and you have to convince admins that you fully understand the reason of your block and that you are ready to stop such behavior. I don't see anything similar here. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2016 (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.