User talk:5150pacer

February 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Djk3 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Mathematics. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal ?
As you can read in the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

I'm sorry if this is news for you, but nobody cares about your opinion on the matter, whether it is true or not. I am somewhat amazed that you do not realize that a sentence like the one you added does not belong in an encyclopedic article. For almost any subject – Brussels sprouts, songs by Frank Sinatra, the leather culture, you name it – there are lots of people who hate it. There are also lots of people who like it. And there are lots of people who are indifferent. Even if we could find reliable sources for these statements, do you think it is worth adding this to the articles on these topics? Most people who "hate math" are taking mathematics in school as a compulsory subject; what they actually hate is not mathematics itself, but the way it is being taught in school. An article on the relationship between how maths is taught and how it is received by the students could be an interesting article in our encyclopedia, but only if it is based on analyses provided in reliable sources.

If you were not aware of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability – but every editor ought to know the five pillars of Wikipedia – then perhaps your second edit was not vandalism. But if you continue to add it, as you threatened to do, not only would you be violating the verifiabilty policy and the policy against "original research", but you'd also be edit warring, which by itself is also against policy. Doing so would definitely qualify as vandalism. Please make yourself familiar with the Wikipedia core policies and guidelines, and always assume good faith and aim at reaching consensus. Happy editing! --Lambiam 09:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you are interested, here is a though-provoking essay on mathematics education in the U.S. --Lambiam 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Mathematics has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Lambiam 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joshua R. Davis (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Djk3 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. Any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

May 2008
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ScottJ (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. ''This is the second warning you have received about this exact same misinformation. If you believe I am in error, you need to provide a source for this information. (Note: don't bother looking for one because the woman in the movie is clearly not Ally Sheedy.)'' ScottJ (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ScottJ (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to leave me a message, the place to do it is on my talk page, not my user page. ScottJ (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in Watchmen
You know, when a word appears in the brackets it is because it wasn't part of the original quote. If you adjust a quote to fit a sentence then you must make sure you note that in the quote (i.e. placing brackets around the adjust part). This is done in some instances where the tense doesn't fit the passage it is used in, or a person was not identified in that particular sentence. You are not allowed to adjust quotes without pointing out what you have adjusted (i.e. without putting brackets on). 156.75.192.109 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Superjail.
You cannot substantiate the edits you are making to the article. Please stop adding your personal opinions and speculation to the article. ThuranX (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, stop. YOu cannot provide citation that they are scandanavian, you are disrupting the direct quote, and you are adding your opinions. all of these are things which make the article worse, not better. ThuranX (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have watched the show, you hjave no sources. Further, pelase leave messages on a user's TALK page, not his front page. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop adding material which cannot be supported by citation to the article, and stop making personal attacks against me. If either event occurs again, I will bring this to the attention of administrators. ThuranX (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your most recent missive to me is yet another annoyingly hostile personal attack. Get over yourself, or you'll find yourself blocked again soon, because maintaining that attitude on this project will rapidly get you there. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop until you have an actual source to support your opinions. Onorem♠Dil 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. Just saying that the first season is your source doesn't cut it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring report is at WP:AN3 if you're interested in commenting. --Onorem♠Dil 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked for a proper citation. I couldn't find one. It's original research unless you find a source that comments on it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"What i'm saying is that there is no source that comments on it, so there can't be a citation can there"
 * I suppose that is correct. What I'm saying is that if there is no source that comments on it, it doesn't belong in the article. Promising to continue to edit war to insert your unsourced original research isn't likely to be productive. --Onorem♠Dil 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"it's just too enigmatic to leave out of the article."
 * That's one opinion. I don't see any consensus that agrees at this point.

"I'm ending the war, but the edits will continue. No disrespect, but it is what it is."
 * In that case, I'm assuming you're looking forward to being blocked. --Onorem♠Dil 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be the ass if you're happy with not adding more unsourced info. And by the way, I didn't assume that you took editing seriously. If you took it seriously, you wouldn't be adding unsourced information after multiple editors tried telling you what was wrong with your approach. --Onorem♠Dil 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

'Citation needed' tags
Please don't remove 'citation needed' tags without providing a citation. These tags indicate someone has challenged a statement and should remain in place until a citation is supplied, or until they 'age out' (date over a month old), at which time the statement (not the tag) can be removed if an editor thinks the statement is dubious. This is what I have done with the two aged-out tags you deleted in Fight Club. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify - on Fight Club, I deleted those two fact-tagged statements because they did seem questionable and no one had come up with a citation after several months. I also undid several other of your fact-tag removals where no citation was supplied.
 * When you're a busy editor, it is sometimes had to remember where you've been, but you can click on the 'my contributions' link at the top of the page to see. --CliffC (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:VFA2-insignia-with-true-colors.JPG


The file File:VFA2-insignia-with-true-colors.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)