User talk:OD Paradox

Welcome!
Hello, OD Paradox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Haploidavey (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please consider the reader
Hello, OD Paradox. I'm afraid I've had to revert most, if not all your contributions to various articles, because they've not been improvements. I don't doubt that you understand what you mean, but I doubt if most other readers or editors would. Perhaps you'd consider slowing down a bit, making only one or two minor changes in a single edit, and then reviewing it carefully before saving. You've also removed cited material from various articles, and introduced uncited material to others; most of the latter is, I fear, probably incomprehensible to anyone but yourself. It's both possible and desirable to present even the most complex topic straightforwardly and clearly. So please, try doing that. Haploidavey (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Re-mov-ing articles of theories as non-sense was done. As stated above.  Afraid to revert, and fear, probably was read.  Consider the reader, and the writers.  Thus, opinions and theories are to be axioms and theorems.  If a sentence is non-cited, then it may change.  Pragmatic changes 'sist' syntax promotion.  Grammar is essential.  OD Paradox


 * I'd second what Haploidavey is saying, with respect. Your edits are not improving the articles, they appear to have been made without regard to the integrity and coherence of the result, and your response above suggests that you need to work on writing comprehensibly. For example, at Cortical map you added the following: "Axiomatically changing cortical conditional development exactly from forming & generating infintesimal-particulate pathways & issuing knowledgeable, logical, & mathematical matrix mechanics, particularly per remapping super-symmetrical ,'Surmatrix' ,symbiotic systems." That sentence appears to lack a verb and it's full of terms that require explanation to the lay reader (and that's overlooking the lack of citations, the spelling error in "infinitesimal" and the careless punctuation). Admittedly I'm not an expert in the subject matter, but that sentence appears to be incomprehensible. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Admittedly I'm not an expert in the subject matter, but that sentence appears to be incomprehensible. An Apparatus; axiomatically change cortical conditional critical-period development exactly from generation of symbiosis. A began critical-period dimensionally infinitesimal, makes neuralogical particulate pathways super-symmetrically transcending time's true 'Universals. As conceivable domain-theory issues knowledgeable & logic- base mathematical mapping matrix mechanics, parallax-remapping per set-theory & super-symmetrical symbiotic systems to transfer true Universals, using Venn-diagrams.  Cohesion is joining knowledge pragmatic problem-solving.

Clearly this wiki system thrives &works. Thank you. Better sentence?

Grammar
Many of your edits are to grammar, but you are clearly not a native English speaker and are making the grammar worse. So I have reverted your edits. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Much of the grammar is by many using 'in' improperly. If you reverted all edits, you clearly were wrong. One can not be 'in 1965'. Please select your reverts properly and particularly for the readers knowledge and behavioral semantics matter. By reverting everything you have worsened the intent of English. Less 'straw man' and 'ad hominem' is professional. Once again, maturity for informative knowledge sites is highly encouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OD Paradox (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * Also with this, this, this, this and this edit, again, after this warning you made a massive amount of grammatical and semantical errors. Please don't try to improve articles that are written in a language that you clearly do not master. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Symbiodinium, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also note that a string like "With hosts, they have happened high of densities" does not form an English sentence. If you don't know how to format a proper sentence in the English language on the English Wikipedia, please consider editing the Wikipedia version of your own language. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tetration. Note that, again this edit destroyed a correct English sentence. - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again to state it is 'unknown' twice is redundant. You must encourage the reader and users to attempt functions. 'IT IS UNKNOWN' stated twice...You are reverting to make statements personally acceptable and treating users from editing obvious needed changes to 'ENCOURAGE WIKI-SYMBIOSIS'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OD Paradox (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But changing "It is not known whether..." to "The discovery is available to whether..." is changing grammatically correct English to incomprehensible gibberish! I don't mean to offend you, but it is clear that you really do not have a very good command of English. Have you thought of sticking to the Wikipedia in your native language? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User OD Paradox. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Despite all the warnings above, you have continued to make the English worse and the meaning more unclear, most recently at Anger. Please listen to the people who suggest your editing (which I'm sure is done with the best intentions) would be more helpful in the Wikipedia of your native language. I'm sorry, but it's not helpful at en.wikipedia. 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:. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)