User talk:209.171.85.218

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Pakistani Canadians, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, further to the above, this list can only contain individuals who are deemed notable according to Wikipedia's very stringent definition. Basically if there isn't already a Wikipedia article about them, or an article closely connected with them, to which you can link their name in the list, then they cannot be in the list. To be notable, they must feature in depth in independent publications. You cannot use an individual's own website or that of their business as a reference supporting their notability. For this reason I've removed this person from the list. Elemimele (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not use article talk pages as forums: WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Latest comment: 3 days ago

Denisovans and Sources our references on talk pages

Latest comment: 1 hour ago I was under the general impression this was where we could discuss the article. I don't see any other sourced information on talk. If you require references to sources I can provide links however I believe by explaining it all, you have the information available to see your wrong and I worded in such a way you can see how to improve the article or find the right answers. Also I cannot change the Latin gerund and their gerundatives or the taxonomy of classification because there's to many errors involved. Further does the Nomia or natural list convey the gerund or does the unnatural list or taxonomy a list of undefined things what you wish to see referenced? Shall I stop at every word and explain it right down to the Gerund or to the Nomia like a puddle lake or ocean perhaps outer space or the big bang or a time before the big bang possibly another dimension or God? Perhaps the taxonomy like said mentioned failed classification or information this articles potrayed perhaps the very law of langauge or provide an inventory of the ancient meanings or even modern definitions given by an dictionary or encyclopedia? How do I provide references to something without a gerund. Your denotional value cannot be my notional value rather the denotional value of a taxonomy or classification systems failure isn't the notional value of me pointing out the Nomia if there's no gerund and its lacking any notional value. How can I reference a conseptual philosophy that's negative.If value is its negative gerund two negatives only make a negative or do I have to provide a source specify how taxonomy and classification of language and math differ because you can't understand me so perhaps I need to reference everyword provided references to those and so on until I find the notional value is Infact offered and its denotional is the referenced source because the gerund is actually the words origins I've defined from the source that English didn't exist when neaderthal did so it's Denotional value is the source or reference and it notional what I originally told you shall I continue because I got my pride and my time isn't free your just an object to me? Or do you prefer I offer to gerund or enslave myself to your gerundative and become enslaved? Defamiliarization of what your requesting could be sourced as the notional gerund Verfremden or your attempt to neuter it's notional gerundative and use Nomia and taxonomy to befremden. Here's your reference or source. verfremden:neuter, - fremden, female noted as to have value, fre - free frem-freefemale, den- a member or citizen under the protection of, Fremden a female of value or under protection denoting particular value as free and feminine: to verfremden is to neuter Befremden: to alienate - to give to something to fremden something of equal to its own value or worth but perhaps a denotation or subtractive value from it. Feminine and freedom as a single thing to alienate freedom and feminine as a combined symbiotic relation to befriend someone takes away from the male female symbiotic relationship to create life. To Befremden one's wife by befriending someone thus neglecting children or to Alienate her from what is only natural like fremden. The defamiliarization verfremden is to defamiliarize your self of the gerundative using your skills to explain the gerund and it's value to explain a new concept or word without changing the word itself. Based on the value of the gerund you'll not have any gerundative value. As a classification of a source. I ask again sir can you please explain how I did not add something which improved this article and what you require references or sources to or do you prefer I use it's gerund?? 209.171.85.218 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dudley Miles, does this make any sense to you at all? IP, this is not going anywhere. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. lettherebedarklight 晚安 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Denisovans and Sources our references on talk pages[edit]

Denisovans and Sources our references on talk pages

I was under the general impression this was where we could discuss the article. I don't see any other sourced information on talk. If you require references to sources I can provide links however I believe by explaining it all, you have the information available to see your wrong and I worded in such a way you can see how to improve the article or find the right answers. Also I cannot change the Latin gerund and their gerundatives or the taxonomy of classification because there's to many errors involved. Further does the Nomia or natural list convey the gerund or does the unnatural list or taxonomy a list of undefined things what you wish to see referenced? Shall I stop at every word and explain it right down to the Gerund or to the Nomia like a puddle lake or ocean perhaps outer space or the big bang or a time before the big bang possibly another dimension or God? Perhaps the taxonomy like said mentioned failed classification or information this articles potrayed perhaps the very law of langauge or provide an inventory of the ancient meanings or even modern definitions given by an dictionary or encyclopedia? How do I provide references to something without a gerund. Your denotional value cannot be my notional value rather the denotional value of a taxonomy or classification systems failure isn't the notional value of me pointing out the Nomia if there's no gerund and its lacking any notional value. How can I reference a conseptual philosophy that's negative.If value is its negative gerund two negatives only make a negative or do I have to provide a source specify how taxonomy and classification of language and math differ because you can't understand me so perhaps I need to reference everyword provided references to those and so on until I find the notional value is Infact offered and its denotional is the referenced source because the gerund is actually the words origins I've defined from the source that English didn't exist when neaderthal did so it's Denotional value is the source or reference and it notional what I originally told you shall I continue because I got my pride and my time isn't free your just an object to me? Or do you prefer I offer to gerund or enslave myself to your gerundative and become enslaved? Defamiliarization of what your requesting could be sourced as the notional gerund Verfremden or your attempt to neuter it's notional gerundative and use Nomia and taxonomy to befremden. Here's your reference or source. verfremden:neuter, - fremden, female noted as to have value, fre - free frem-freefemale, den- a member or citizen under the protection of, Fremden a female of value or under protection denoting particular value as free and feminine: to verfremden is to neuter Befremden: to alienate - to give to something to fremden something of equal to its own value or worth but perhaps a denotation or subtractive value from it. Feminine and freedom as a single thing to alienate freedom and feminine as a combined symbiotic relation to befriend someone takes away from the male female symbiotic relationship to create life. To Befremden one's wife by befriending someone thus neglecting children or to Alienate her from what is only natural like fremden. The defamiliarization verfremden is to defamiliarize your self of the gerundative using your skills to explain the gerund and it's value to explain a new concept or word without changing the word itself. Based on the value of the gerund you'll not have any gerundative value. As a classification of a source. I ask again sir can you please explain how I did not add something which improved this article and what you require references or sources to or do you prefer I use it's gerund?? 209.171.85.218 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There was also disruptive editing in the form of WP:NOTFORUM.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2023 (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.