User talk:JordanL462

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Deinonychus has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Deinonychus was changed by JordanL462 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.861793 on 2014-01-09T04:01:35 00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alexornis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Alrxornis is seen in [[Walking With Dinosaurs (film).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Also, about the "Walking with..." article

Hello, JordanL462, 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit to Walking with.... First off, that show brings me back, I watched Walking with Dinosaurs all the time as a kid. Second, I think I see some good reasons to remove the content you replaced. That section doesn't meet Wikipedia policies for a couple reasons.

It's totally unsourced. Every Wikipedia article needs reliable, independent sources to support the information in the article. Without sources, we have no way of knowing that the page wasn't original research, something which Wikipedia doesn't allow.
It's gigantic. Adding it in triples the size of the article. Having most of the article based around criticism of the subject puts what Wikipedia calls undue weight on the critical part of the article. If there was, say, an article by a paleontologist in a reliable source that was critical of the series' accuracy, then maybe that article could be used for some content on criticism of the series, but a huge unsourced section is far too much.

Hope this clears up why I've reverted your edit. If you have any questions, just ask them in this section, or on my talk page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop adding the material to the article. I've explained why it isn't appropriate. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where should it go?

Unfortunately, unless you have sources for this content it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not the place to collate original research. This is the primary problem; not so much that it criticises, but that the criticism is completely unsourced and the reader has no way of knowing who made it, what expertise they have (if any), and how accurate it is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm Seaphoto. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User talk:Flyer22, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Seaphoto^Talk 02:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He undid my edits to 2 pages I was cleaning. Returning dirty language made me want to betray him to blocking by Wikipedia staff.JordanL462 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First: I am not a he; I am a she. Second: I undid your edit here and here because that is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Do read WP:Not censored. And lastly, read up on WIkipedia:Policies and guidelines; otherwise, you won't last much longer at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion request

Do not readd the speedy deletion request. It will be declined and you will be blocked as it is disruptive to continually readd the request. If you feel it should be deleted the only avenue you have is to go through the WP:AFD process. GB fan 02:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Can you please stop doing that? It's basically vandalism. Please take some time-out to read the rules here, as if you keep doing what you're doing (especially the "block me" stuff re. other editors), you're going to end up being blocked yourself - Alison ^❤ 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! I was cleaning up pages containing swearing! Cleaning isn't vandalism at all!JordanL462 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fuck. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Fuck was changed by JordanL462 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951203 on 2014-02-22T03:01:20 00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove all content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Fuck. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Seaphoto^Talk 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a swear word. A terrible word. JordanL462 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

So what? Wikipedia is not censored, and being "a swear word. A terrible word" is not good enough a reason to delete such articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deinonychus

No new information has been inserted for half a year. I think that new info should be added.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JordanL462 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't abuse multiple accounts, plus I am not related to the imposter (GBeeFàn).

Decline reason:

Yes you are, per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You don't get to revert unblock declines. I've reverted your talk page access. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts, per two Checkusers. Also, admin impersonation - Alison ^❤ 18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]