User talk:193.39.159.73

July 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scribblenauts, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Scribblenauts was changed by 193.39.159.73 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950854 on 2012-07-23T12:06:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Ian Rankin. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm Tentinator. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Cheeseman because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  Tentinator   18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bobolink, you may be blocked from editing.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2014
Next edit like this will get your IP blocked. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm John Cline. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Ulmus glabra 'Monstrosa', because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —John Cline (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=597081304 your edit] to Craigmillar Castle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * of Scots. Much of the woodland within the castle estate dates from the early to mid 19th century. ref name=GDL/
 * //www.craigmillarcastle.com craigmillarcastle.com] History and photographs of Craigmillar Castle

Merging Purpurea & Atropurpurea
I quite agree; please go ahead with the merger. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ulmus 'Paul King'
You're right; just have a subliminal contempt for / suspicion of a tree that's effectively claimed to be DED resistant, but which has never been scientifically tested. I'm currently evaluating three Spanish U. minor clones which #have been proven to be very resistant (on a par with 'Sapporo A G') to DED, so who knows? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Had the sizes / prices started somewhat lower, I'd have bought a few and sent them to Cemagref France for inoculation with the pathogen, as I have done with other 'promising' native trees, such as the Gittisham wych elm (no resistance whatsoever, all died within two weeks). So far, only an unknown hybrid growing at what was Vicary Gibbs' Aldenham Estate has shewn any promise, with a resistance of about 3 out of 5. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

F.L. Lucas
You are right. Sorry about the unnecessary revert. Regards --Chewings72 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Edinburgh elm hybrid
I've been copied photos of a putative laevis x glabra hybrid, growing in a cemetery in or near Edinburgh. Do you have any knowledge of it? Would much appreciate details. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, very (as) interesting, but I'm not sure its the same tree. The photo I have is of a single tree definitely in a churchyard / cemetery. The close up of the leaves shows a very oblique base, unmistakably glabra-like. Who would have been hybridizing these trees? Regards,Ptelea (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regret I don't know which cemetery; the only clue in one of the photos is that the site is above a slope, as the limited view behind the tree only features rooftops. The buttressing at the base of the trunk obviously suggests laevis, meanwhile the bases of the leaves are so asymmetric as can only suggest glabra influence; the margins are simply serrate. I don't know the city very well, but from Google Earth and Streetview, Warriston is a possibility. The ID was made by the city's tree officer, and the trunk bears a blue circular tag, but the focus isn't sharp enough to read it. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've since learnt the tree is in the North Merchiston Cemetery, and that the ID was in fact made by an amateur pteleologist based in Brighton. My contact at the RBGE is very sceptical about it, considering it just another form of laevis. Accordingly, I'm not investigating it further. A false alarm, but thanks for your input anyway. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! freshacconci talk to me  13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2015
Hello, I'm Sparklism. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bob Fairfoull because it did not appear constructive. 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. — sparklism hey! 11:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Probable elm extinctions
Agreed, such postulations are out of place without a cited reference. Not too sure about your Brighton cv. IDs such as Muscaviensis, doubtless the opinion of the resident elm expert there. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

U. minor 'Suberosa'?
Regret I'm with Richens on this one. I have found such corky trees randomly distributed across the countryside of southern France, the most extreme near the Mont St Victoire visitor centre on the approach to Le Tholonet. I started my elm collection with the gift of seeds from openly-pollinated 'Accolades' sent by the Morton Arb.; the variation in form and foliage has been remarkable with, in one case only, a tree with branching festooned with broad corky wings throughout. Ergo, I'm inclined to believe this minor form is just random, an accident of genetic pairing, and not necessarily clones of cultivated trees although I'm sure they exist. I have sampled the seeds of the Goodyer Elm over the years, but none ever germinated, reinforcing the notion this tree has only ever reproduced vegetatively, and thus wherever cloned by man has qualified as a true cultivar. 'Ordinary' Field Elm, on the other hand, particularly in southern Europe, can produce vast quantities of viable seed, and with it thousands of genetic variants, some producing corky wings. As ever, the definitive answer would seem to lie with DNA analysis, but Forest Research here is now declining such work with Ulmus. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Coritana' a bridge too far, a taxon never accepted even in its 'day' From the Plant List: Ulmus coritana Melville is an unresolved name. The record derives from WCSP (in review) (data supplied on 2012-03-26) which does not establish this name either as an accepted name or as a synonym with original publication details: J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 53: 263 1949. From Bean: This controversial species was described by Dr Melville in 1949 (Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.), Vol. 53, pp. 263-71). As interpreted by him it has a wide range in central England, from the Thames to the Trent and from Warwick to E. Anglia, the var. rotundifolia being more southern in distribution and grading northward into var. angustifolia. It is not recognised as distinct from U. carpinifolia in the second edition of Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, Flora of the British Isles, and is considered by R. H. Richens to be ‘an artificial aggregate’.

Never had much faith in Melville's taxonomy. In the words of my French counterpart: Melville saw hybrids everywhere. Not that I'm suggesting coritana is. Not sure about boissieri, we really know so little about it. I tried for years to get a translation of Grudzinskaya'a paper but failed, and the tree, apparently endemic to the Zagros mountains, has become confused with street elms in Isfahan. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

U. minor 'Variegata' etc.
As the names have already been used in the past, the moves reverting to former names cannot be accepted, and therefore require the services of an administrator to sort out. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * U. minor 'Variegata' was changed to U. minor subsp. minor 'Variegata', and as such can't be reverted via the 'Move' facility. Regards

Ptelea (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bob Fairfoull, you may be blocked from editing. ''This isn't the first time you've vandalized this article. Please stop.'' — sparklism  hey! 14:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2016
Hello, I'm KGirlTrucker81. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 14:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Serols (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Poort Bulten elm
Thanks; the original image was of a Siberian Elm growing at Groningen, and was uploaded in error to the Poort Bulten page by our Serbian collaborator. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ulmus × hollandica 'Virens'
Enjoyed reading about the possible Kidbrook tree in Edinburgh, but its not strictly permissible; please read Original Research. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Chichester Elm
You're right; its an anomaly that's always bothered me, but blame Loudon, he applied the taxon to two different trees. What we need is an authority like Max prepared to rechristen the Chichester tree. Regret I know of no local specimens to take leaves from; best bet would be Richard Smith, who has made study of the tree his retirement MO; I'll send you his email address. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ulmus 'Purpurea' has been reverted. Your edit here to Ulmus 'Purpurea' was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://blomsterbo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/almar.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Ulmus glabra 'Corylifolia Purpurea' have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Ulmus glabra 'Corylifolia Purpurea' was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://blomsterbo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/almar.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Pedestrian scramble
That was a superb copy-edit of the pedestrian scramble article. In case you are not aware, can I draw your attention to the list of benefits of having a user account?  Schwede 66  22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you created (Style (book)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Style (book)!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

March 2018
Please carefully read all that is below, to ensure that your change does not get reverted.

Greetings, my name is ! dave, and I noticed you that you added or changed information  to South Gyle, but you did not supply a reliable source to verify what you wrote, or you did not supply a source at all. Instead of immediately reverting your changes, I am giving you 24 hours to supply a reliable source for your change. I will revert after this point. Thank you for your understanding.

'''Confused? Click 'Expand' on the boxes below to explain more!'''

Simply explained, a reliable source is known for good fact-checking. The source can be trusted. Reliable sources are therefore not blogs or "self-published sources" (see WP:SPS for explanation), tabloid newspapers or anything that doesn't seem too interested in providing factual information.

Next to what you wrote, insert
 * For a standard web reference:

The above is the basic information required in a reference. For more parameters, including the date of the work and author, see Template:Cite web.

This will appear like:

Arthur always likes to eat cheese, but not Andrew.

See this YouTube video.
 * For a single book reference:

See this video:
 * Journal?



talk to ! dave 12:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Brighton elm collection list
Is this list still worth citing? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ulmus minor 'Hunnybunii'
Huh, turns out you are right you did make a new page, the early edits didn't have the hyperlink (or if they did I missed it) as I was editing on my phone as I was rebuilding my pc at the time Daniel0wellby (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Z0. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Ulmus × arbuscula— because it 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 or my talk page. Thank you. The editor  whose username is Z0 10:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Ulmus × hollandica 'Major', even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, I'm StraussInTheHouse. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Patrick Mahomes— because it 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.  SITH   (talk)   16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Hello, I'm HickoryOughtShirt?4. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Firrhill High School 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. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Hello. Your recent edit to King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

July 2019
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Portal:United States— because it 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. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Council of Science Editors. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Flag of Italy, you may be blocked from editing. KNHaw  (talk)  18:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Standard of the United Kingdom. CLCStudent (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at National flag, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent vandalism. 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:. Alexf(talk) 09:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a shared account. You can't punish us all for the actions of one individual. -193.39.159.73 (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A number of people use this account. Can you stop blocking all of us please? -193.39.159.73 (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Shared Account
Will you stop blocking library accounts please? This goes completely against the supposed principles of Wikipedia.

February 2022
Hello, I'm Kpddg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Edinburgh Waverley railway station, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ulmus minor 'Umbraculifera Gracilis', did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''The references were helpful, but the removal of an entire links section was uncalled for and did not contribute to the overall article. '' Awilh37 Talk 12:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)