User talk:Ontheteapot

October 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Milan, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Milan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Milan, you may be blocked from editing. ''It's not about what you think it looks like. It's a heraldic device, and the description specifies a child.'' Meters (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * You think I can understand your opinion? Are you to mean the heraldic device got a description.. where? Ontheteapot (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * is talking about the blazon: "D'argento, alla biscia d'azzurro, divorante un bambino nudo di carnagione e coronata d'oro." See http://www.comuni-italiani.it/015/151/stemma.html —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 13:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and reference to a heraldic device in 19th century, centuries after that one on that image, demonstrating I edited to correct a mistake. Children that big in 14th century? Ontheteapot (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you overestimate the size of the biscione. Also, the Visconti may have started using it as early as the 10th century. Peaceray (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The muscles are that of a man right? Do you mean children and men have similar bycepts? Ontheteapot (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about what you think it looks like. It's described as a child. Meters (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy on original research. The type of edit you want to make requires that a reliable source has described it this way. Plus you need to verify this with a citation. Peaceray (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that this Italian source describes the figure as a child. Do you have one that describes it as a person?
 * Peaceray (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Children are not developed like men: see the arms. There is no image on the reference posted and these devices evolved through the centuries as listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscione, instead I sent a good reference where the same image as at page is described. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Double_standards. Please read that Ontheteapot (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations are the currency here at Wikipedia, not opinion or personal observation.
 * As noted in David notMD's reply at 20:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC) at the Teahouse, any further discussion would be best at Talk:Milan. Peaceray (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or even more appropriately on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 12:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or even more appropriately on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 12:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Milan) for a period of 1 week for disruption. 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:. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that you need to work on your Wikipedia skills a bit. Things to work on include correct English, proper secondary citations, word choice, and relevance--and editing in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get the point that you need to work on many things like how style and fashion differ for example, all-round lack of relevant sources, and what you said. Couldn't be in a greater disagreement. I am blocked. Ontheteapot (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Milan, you may be blocked from editing. ''Something like "From 5th to 8th century it was reigned by the Germanic Longobards destroyed by Charlemagne even while they had converted to catholicism, then foundational to Italy in the Middle Ages." is simply mangled beyond comprehension. You may find the description "bad machine translation" offensive, but I see that you have just come of a week-long block from the "Milan" article, and your new additions are again highly problematic. I doubt that you have the necessary language skills to edit on the English Wikipedia, and may be better off at a Wikipedia language version you are more fluent in.'' Fram (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * In English I am not very fluent but that's more or less the way the referenced source puts it. Ontheteapot (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that the first of the two sources, this one, only mentions Milan once, in parentheses, as the last of a list of cities, I fail to see how it is useful for the article on Milan in the first place, never mind any effort to reproduce its contents in acceptable English. Fram (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Source doesn't provide info on the city of Milan but on the reigning peoples of wider area next to Milan and which will set the foundations for what Milan were to become. The city of Pavia was chosen as capital by the Germanic Longobards because it had a river evidently, but it's only 20 miles from Milan more inland. Ontheteapot (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which means that it has no information on "The city's role as a major political centre dates back to the late antiquity, when it served as the capital of the Western Roman Empire. From 5th to 8th century it was under the reign of the Germanic Longobards destroyed by Charlemagne before 9th century, and even while after having converted to catholicism, then foundational to Italy in the Middle Ages", whatever that sentence is supposed to mean. Fram (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You correct its grammar then, while so: won't be learning English for the purpose of editing your page that's not obvious? Told you my English is not fluent, what else. I am not going to be reverting or adding anything. I am done foreseenly. Ontheteapot (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would I try to correct the grammar for text I can barely understand, which is sourced to one source which doesn't address the topic and one very general source I can't access but which is hardly the best source for this, just to include some things already better explained in the following paragraphs anyway? Why would we keep your change of "child" to "man" when that is the exact issue you were blocked over already? Your edits are not an improvement in any way, and there is no need to "correct" them when reverting them does the same job in a much better way. Fram (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would look for confirming or contradicting references about what I barely understand. Ontheteapot (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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:. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)