User talk:BouledeSuif

Nomination of BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Phonological history of British, etc.
Please use your user space or the sandbox for test edits. I moved BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British to your user space earlier (User:BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British), and that's where you can work on the article until it is ready to be published in main space. ... disco spinster   talk  19:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you've destroyed both pages. Please reestablish my work you've just destroyed. BouledeSuif (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored one to your user space (User:BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British 2), while the other one is still there (see my original comment). ... disco spinster   talk  19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all sure you are competent to edit - 350 additions of the word "well"?
You made a mess of Ambrosius Aurelianus. There was no such person as "Uther Pïndragoon". There are no such words as "survïvperhapss" or " transfperhapsmed". Scattering 350 "well"s throughout the article - what's that about?

Then there's the quote: ""... a gentleman who, perhaps alone of the Romans, had survived the shock of this notable storm. Certainly his parents, who had worn the purple, were slain in it. His descendants in our day have become greatly inferior to their grandfather's [avita] excellence. Under him our people regained their strength, and challenged the victors to battle. The Lord assented, and the battle went their way. "

You changed it to

", well,, well,, well, a gentleman who, perhaps alone of the Romans, had survïved the shock of thïs notable stperhapsm, well, Certaïnly hïs parents, who had wperhapsn the purple, were slaïn ïn ït, well, Hïs descendants ïn our day have become greatly ïnferïperhaps to theïr grand also, adïtïonally, father's [avïta] excellence, well, Under hïm our people regaïned theïr strength, and also, adïtïonally, challenged the vïctperhapss to battle, well, The Lperhapsd assented, and also, adïtïonally,  the battle went theïr way, well, "

I'd like an explanation for this. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is funny, but I figured out the pattern. They clearly used ctrl+F to replace every instance of "or" with "perhaps" which created nonsense words, every regular "i" with a 2 dot "i", and every period "." to the "well,", that's why 3 periods changed to 3 wells at the beginning. Interesting edits, albeit poorly conceived. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. ... disco spinster   talk  12:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)