User talk:UtherPendrogn

Who adapts whom

Your edit summary says "Species cannot adapt. Ask any scientist. Monkeys don't suddenly go "hey, it's pretty warm, I'll shed my fur!". The climate ADAPTS the animal"

Just the same I may say "climate doesn't suddenly go "hey, y'all monkeys, shed your fur right now!" Regardless, the language is sometimes rather illogical. For starters, you may want to read the wikipedia article "adaptation" , and if you disagree with the language, the talk page Talk:adaptation is a proper place to discuss the usage. But I doubt you will find support there, because adaptation is a trait of an animal (monkey) rather than of the environment (weather). In a certain sense you are right in that climate affects the animal, but it it animal's organism which responds to the effects of the climate. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But an action verb such as adapt does imply a degree of consciousness of it happening. Natural selection happens to animals, even though the Natural selection is only present in the animal's organism. No one says that monkeys "naturally select" themselves, so we shouldn't say monkeys "adapt" either. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the language is illogical. E.g., read "anthropomorphism". Therefore you should not derive a word's meaning and usage from its literal meaning; you should rely on common usage, whatever "wrong" it may seem to you. In particular, in wikipedia, you have to prove your opinion by citing reliable sources, not by your own arguments, however logical they may seem to you. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guinevere, Clovis I

Please provide references which confirm your changes in spelling, otherwise they will be reverted. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to them, maybe? In any case, the previous forms were just wrong. And what authority do you have on those pages?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Windos%C4%93baris

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/Hl%C5%8Ddowig

UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide references from published scholarly sources. Links to any wikipedia/wiktionary/etc. are not considered reliable sources, see WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please re-read the end of the "Welcome!" section about how to sign you posts in talk pages properly. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, enjoy your wrong information. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fuck, you may be blocked from editing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not vandalising. The term "wanfucked" is used in the Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie. Do I have to buy a copy of the poem and bring it to your house for you to believe me, or will the source I provided do? UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Arthur stone"

Your recent editing history at Artognou stone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigman:, help. I'm not edit-warring. UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss - and get agreement to - your suggested changes on the article talk page, as the note above says. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not suggestions or changes. A member removed the information that had been there for a long time, got banned for it, and now we can't add it back. The system is totally broken if we need to rejustify everything each time a vandal destroys information. I will not discuss it, since they are not my changes, and were never questioned except by a vandal who is now banned. I'm done reverting anything, if you won't listen to reason. UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked. Hilariously, you're the one who started off by deleting it... Without consulting the talk page or talking to anyone else about it. Do as I say but not do as I do, eh? UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a moot point. The mention of "Arthur stone" was not included in the article from 14 October 2013 until 16 November 2016, and no sources were given to justify its reinstatement. The source you have now added may provide a basis for it to be mentioned in the article, and in turn that may provide a good enough reason for it to be mentioned in the lead. But, please learn how to go about making changes in the correct way - by formatting references correctly per WP:CITE, and by adding them to the main article text before (or as well as) adding text to the lead section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cite some sources as to why it should be removed and I might cite some more as to why it should be added. It's not a moot point since you vandalised the page without proof, and now that I've added proof you're accusing me of doing the wrong thing. This is comically ridiculous. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it without "proposing your suggested changes on the talk page". I did the same thing. If you want to remove the sentence, by all means, propose away on the talk page. But don't remove it without consulting anyone. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:EDIT. It is the responsibility of those editors who add information to provide the justification, not those who remove unsourced content. You've now added a source, which is good - thank you. I doubt it's a very good source, and it's poorly formatted and in the wrong place, but we'll let that pass for the moment. And, please, do not refer to edits that are in line with policy as "vandalism" - it's silly, and disruptive. See Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Since usage of the word "Artagnou Stone" is not sourced, I shall remove it. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Fuck. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is *not* vandalism. It is relevant to the section it's in, sourced, and arguably interesting. UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of 3RR after warning - 5 reverts in 24 hours, as you did at Fuck. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 27 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

The information was pertinent, accurate, and sourced. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, in particular running afoul of the three revert rule, not for the contents of your edits. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:33, 27 November 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.

Well, where's the ban for the people who made me HAVE to perform an edit war? I reported them for vandalism but nothing was done. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has to edit war. Please read WP:VANDALISM. That was a content dispute, not vandalism, and I've told CAPTAIN RAJU the same thing. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other tip. 3 reverts per 24 hours is not an entitlement. If you keep reverting you will probably be blocked again. Go to the talk page and get consensus. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which no one else has to do. The edits I was reverting were people who didn't go to the talk page to get a consensus. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced material at Fuck on 12:31, October 31, 2016‎. Izno reverted you. An edit summary by Izno would have been helpful. You boldly added material. It was reverted. Time to discuss it, per WP:BRD.

Instead, you restored it on 17:07, November 2, 2016‎. GB fan reverted, calling it "unsourced trivia". Another good time to discuss.

Instead, you restored it a total of 8 times, with 7 different editors reverting you. After 5 restorations, you stated, "I am not interested in edit-warring." At the same time, you were carrying on a discussion saying that every edit should be discussed on the article's talk page first at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Disparity. You were also having discussions on this talk page about unsourced additions.

Let's be clear: If you add material to an article without a source, any editor may remove it at any time, per WP:V (which is one of our core policies). If you restore material to an article that had been there for 5.6 billion years and was removed 1 second ago by an IP editor with no other edits, the edit is now yours. If it is unsourced, any editor may remove it at any time. If you feel the material should be included without a source, discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If another editor disputes your edit, restoring the edit without discussion is a bad idea. It's no better than someone saying "nuh-uh" and you replying "uh-huh". Discuss the issue. If it is reverted a second time by a second editor and you still haven't discussed it, stop what you are doing and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If a third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh editor are reverting your edit and you still haven't discussed it, it is way past the time to discuss the issue, it is time for a block to get you to discuss the issue. I haven't looked into the "Arthur Stone" issue above, but I'm guessing there might have been something similar at play there, given the warning for edit warring.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If one person says one thing and several (or 7) others say that person it wrong, they might or might not be wrong, but they will need to discuss the issue before forging ahead. Otherwise, that person will be blocked -- repeatedly if necessary -- until they discuss the issue to form a consensus, drop the issue, leave or are banned from the site. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it says above, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't you be blocked indefinitely?

This edit suggests that you aren't going to be able to work within our policies and guidelines and don't intend to try. Doug Weller talk 06:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: UtherPendrogn's edit (which replace an earlier unsourced edit) used 3 sources. One does not support the statement without WP:OR, one does (though it may not be WP:MEDRS, the third (Narconon) is clearly not a reliable source. The problem here is not the edit to the article, but their reaction to it being reverted: a rant that they are clearly correct and anyone who disagrees is "idiotic" or, well, you can read it.

I don't think that response is by itself cause for an indefinite block, but it is a step in that direction, IMO. UtherPendrogn needs to understand this is a collaborative project and civil discussion is necessary to resolve disputes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be as likely to find a paper on how MPP and AP are similar as you are to find one proving rain is water. It's so ridiculously obvioud that it should be WP:EAMCDI, even a monkey could do it.

Also, given your attitude to Scientific facts, I'd hate to see the Wikipedia page for String Theory. Probably barren. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivially easy to find a reliable source stating the rain is (mostly) water. In most cases, we would not need a peer-reviewed journal article for this, though that's certainly available as well. More importantly is that reliable sources are required for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. That rain is water is unlikely to be challenged. Depending on context, challenging it would probably be best treated as disruption. That methamphetamine is "similar" to amphetamine is hardly common knowledge.

I would strongly suggest that you sit out the block and strive to be more responsive and less reactive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for editing my talk page however I like? Yes, that fits under idiotic. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, not banned. And not for editing your talk page however you like, although you need to follow Wikipedia:User pages. But you didn't know about that so no one should block you for deleting the unblock request. But your edits here do show an attitude that isn't conducive to working with others, even after what I wrote at the beginning of this section and SummerPhDv2.0's response. Please read WP:AGF. It still isn't too late to show you are willing to work with others. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to work with others. But those others are not vocal and threatened me on my talk page. You're accusing me of something they are equally, if not more, guilty of. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller, this user finds it useful to revert me on my own talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said you didn't understand, I clarified. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified more like. Neither of us understood it - and please, don't bother, in the scheme of things it isn't important now. You had no right to replace your post that he removed. Especially after I pointed you to a link about user talk pages. On a more positive note, your behavior at Anglo-Saxon dress and its talk page is encouraging. You haven't been threatened on your talk page, you've been advised and told about the consequences of not following our policies and guidelines. Consider the fact that you've made less than 200 edits, and the least number of edits made by others on your talk page is over 8000, ranging to about 210,000. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That just means you're more wikipedia-savvy and can be trusted more with the system, not that you're right, or a good person. Not that you're a bad person at all, but you seem to be implying some sort of superiority in terms of quality of character. I may have misinterpreted your message. Also, on the Anglo-Saxon dress page, I think I may have made a terrible mistake. Should sources be given in full each time, or can they be shortened to something like "(Author's Last Name) (Page)", rather than "(Author's Full Name) (ISBN) (Publisher) (Date) (Name of Book) (Page)"? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did read the link you sent me, but I didn't see anything that said you couldn't revert someone's page against his will. In fact, it's been done to me a few times on wiktionary when I tried to delete some unwarranted insults someone posted. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cagwinn Vandalism claims

@Cagwinn: Which edits?

Uther Pendragon: Kʷennomdrungos is the Proto-Celtic form of Penndronn, which Pendragon is likely derived from. Drungos became Irish drong and Breton drogn, Old Welsh dronn.

Kw > P

e > e

nn > nn

om > lost due to apocope (which started around the 450's according to Peter Schrijver)

dr > dr

u > o (the process is explained in Language and History in Early Britain by Kenneth Jackson, the reverse exists as with Orbogenos > Urbgen)

ng > nn

os > lost due to apocope

Kʷennomdrungos > Penndronn

Maelgwn: Maglokunos

M > M

a > a

g > ɨ (since it's before an l, g is vocalised)

l > l

k > g (k is lenited since it's intervocalic)

o > o (unstressed o is lost)

u > u

n > n

os > lost due to apocope

Which gives Proto-Brythonic Maɨlgun, which fits perfectly with the Old Welsh form of Maelgwn, which is Mailgun.

The Artognou Stone edits are sourced and correct.

So where is your unsourced vandalism? UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at WP:ANI, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He personally attacked me a few posts prior. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jesus Christ. The nonsense continues. This is not you helping someone, it's you being a totally patronizing asshole to someone seven and a half months after an edit was made. I encourage everyone in this thread to look at that talk page. You totally insulted the editor--I removed it, and the editor thanked me for it. And no, I don't consider you reinstating a message on my talk page to be harassment, because I got pretty thick skin and you can't touch this. I do consider it rude and ill-mannered--but nice non-apology apology, man. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your continued battlefield approach and continued attacks on other editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been aggressed by other users, who have called me an asshole, belittled me, and threatened me, while posting messages specifically to bring me back to the ANI then telling me to leave.

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the reasons for the block. Besides, you have filed a request via UTRS. —DoRD (talk) 13:28, 1 December 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.

You are continuing with your attacks on another editor, "it's about adding to the encyclopaedia, which Cagwinn is destroying", long after that editor has been sanctioned for their bad behaviour - and that must stop. The issue with that user has been dealt with and any further problems will also be dealt with in the appropriate manner. Multiple users have repeatedly pleaded with you to drop the stick, and if you will not drop it voluntarily, you will be made to drop it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fucking dropped the stick, it's those editors fucking calling me back to the ANI that are making me even continue this fucking pantomime of an excuse for justice on this website. Cagwinn is ignoring the possible IBAN by adding shit to pages and reverting my edits on the whole thing that started this mess, where he violently insulted and threatened me. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And no, they have not been sanctioned for their bad behaviour. They were sanctioned for an edit war, not for insulting me, threatening me, and now undoing my edits despite an IBAN being in sight. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Considering that UtherPendrogn has been continuing the attacks on Cagwinn long after the latter was blocked for bad behaviour, will not drop the stick (the most recent was "it's about adding to the encyclopaedia, which Cagwinn is destroying", just above), and has been causing one of the biggest time sinks I've seen in, well, days, I have blocked for 24 hours. Enough is enough, and if this disruptive battleground behaviour continues when the block expires, I will block for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)"

@Boing! said Zebedee: Are you fucking joking? Boing seems to be the sound your bong made before you wrote that message, not what Zebedee said. He got blocked for EDIT WARRING, he's gone unpunished for threatening and insulting me. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TO MENTION HE'S CONTINUING TO FUCKING SHIT TALK ME BEHIND MY FUCKING BACK! https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cagwinn&diff=752342033&oldid=752337418 UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was posted more than twelve hours before your block. Cagwinn has not apparently logged in since sometime before my first post in your ANI thread. If he is continuing to "fucking shit talk" you "behind your back", that certainly isn't it, since that post is public. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triple (edit conflict) Uther, you need to be patient, refrain from using profanity, and stop taking things so personally. I have not attacked you, nor has Mr rnddude. Your previous block, as Cagwinn's, had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of your edits. If you are going to be unblocked and avoid further blocks, you need to try to understand what it was that you were blocked for. Your above appeal will, as it is currently worded, almost certainly be rejected. I am personally opposed to IBANs, and I would defend you against the above-mentioned IBAN, but it seems like you don't understand why it is being proposed. The only insults and threats you received were in direct response to you actively going out of your way and provoking them. You need to drop the stick, and soon. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I DIDN'T FUCKING PROVOKE HIM! UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. Please use the time to do something that relaxes you, and come back here when you feel able to talk civilly without shouting, swearing, and lashing out at everyone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

After the abusive emails you just sent me, I have revoked your ability to use the Wikiepdia email system and I have increased your block to indefinite. If you wish to make any further unblock requests, please use WP:UTRS. If any reviewing admin or Arbcom member wants to see the emails, please send me an email and I'll oblige by return. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17028 was submitted on Dec 01, 2016 12:03:14. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing UTRS admins, UtherPendrogn has been sending abuse to multiple people via different channels, some of which is truly grotesque - I have details available should you need it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having seen there's been another UTRS request, I should add that I would strongly oppose any unblock that does not examine the off-wiki abuse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more bit of information for anyone considering an unblock, see here which shows UtherPendrogn is also indef blocked on Wiktionary with "Reason: Intimidating behavior/harassment: repeat offense (multiple)". That's the only other project with any activity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17030 was submitted on Dec 01, 2016 14:02:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uther, I have to say that I am rather disappointed. You could've gotten off a lot easier if you just dropped the stick. At worst, you both would've been temporarily blocked and banned from each other. The situation didn't have to escalate the way it did. Seeing as the situation appears to be over, this message will probably be the last of my involvement in this case. On that note, I urge you to reconsider your actions if you are unblocked. Dark Knight 2149 19:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and Darkknight2149:

FYI: also blocked indefinitely on the French WP, much for the same reasons. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for letting us know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and I suspect his days at fr.wiktionary are numbered too, after this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's already been blocked from en.wikt for the same behavior. —DoRD (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just put that diff into Google translate. Block well needed. Dark Knight 2149 17:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Quebec and I speak French, having graduated from a French high school. I'd like to affirm that in fact what Uther is now spreading across various Wiki sites in French is a well-needed block, but sadly it's only their first offence on the French Wikitionary. By any chance, is a possible to ban a user on across all Wikis? I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow he showed up on the Spanish Wikipedia with the same behaviour. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks then appeal by emailing arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of ArbCom. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.