User talk:Currykills

March 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Koosh ball, did not appear constructive and has 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. Thank you. LovelyLillith (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Koosh ball. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LovelyLillith (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Koosh ball, you may be blocked from editing. LovelyLillith (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have protected Koosh ball for three days.

Now that said, I don't agree with LovelyLillith that you were vandalising Wikipedia. I can see from your edits that you have taken exception that Scott Stillinger has received the patent of the ball and got the rights, whereas you haven't. As they say in Avenue Q, it sucks to be you.

Unfortunately, we can only report on what the wider world says, and the patent is very clearly and unambiguously issued in his name. Unless the national press or a court hearing comes to light that gives you equal rights to the patent, it's unlikely you'll be able to get this changed. And that takes a long time. To give you some examples, received wisdom stated that Charles Darrow invented Monopoly when in fact he didn't, which wasn't corrected for decades. Or Matthew Fisher spent about 40 years campaigning to be credited as co-writer of "A Whiter Shade of Pale". Sometimes you've just got to pick your battles. For now, I have removed patent information completely from the article as I don't think it's particularly relevant, and that seems to be the best compromise in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)