User talk:Swarvellous dude

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude[edit]

have some dignity for bluecoat, i learnt my lesson but admittedly wish that keithD would stop reverting everything before the rest of us read it

Welcome[edit]

Hello Swarvellous dude! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! James086 Talk | Contribs 13:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Thank you for experimenting with the page The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. DanCrowter 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Blue Coat"[edit]

I'm not trying to do the school a service, I don't especially like the school myeslf. i just enjoy writing wikipedia articles, and would appreciate it if you stoppped vandalising them. also, when you edit the page you do not make it entertaining, you just annoy people. there is nothing seriously wrong with the school, i personally find the pastoral and academic support reasonably good. but as this has little to do with the website, i shall stop talking.

Your edits so far[edit]

You seem to have misunderstood what this site is for. I think Uncyclopedia might be a better place for your particular style of contributions. Check it out. --Spondoolicks 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School[edit]

Please do not keep puting in links to old versions of this page. This site is not for airing views on the school but to give factual information only. It should be encyclopedic content that must be verifiable.

Keith D 11:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - BanyanTree 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... actually it clearly does need references as everything so far seems to have an air of "This is what my friend told me". It appears that you have little interest in bettering the article and you can read {{test3}} to see how close you are to being blocked. Or you could find some references and use them to expand the article. - BanyanTree 13:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Is this Karl Dixon or Tim James or who? I'm just wondering, as I'd like to be able to quote your comments on the article without them being deleted. Cheers DanCrowter 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... not Karl Dixon or Tim James... long term member of the choir.... well, i'm guessing either [insert name here] or john cordle, although mr. cordle has already told me that it is not him editing... lol, or are you sam asbury's big bro? sam was havin a go at me for continually reverting the article.. oh well. DanCrowter 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School[edit]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Keith D 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School, you will be blocked from editing. Special-T 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for vandalism for continuing to edit the article after having been warned to stop. Your links to video pages are not reliable surces, and you are going to have to come up with some pretty reliable sources to prove that Karl Dixon and John Cordle were in your high school's play. Corvus cornix 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block.[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

· AndonicO Talk 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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).

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

Request reason:

Repeated unjustified removal of correct and encyclopedic information, after replacing and referencing this information I find that my account has been blocked

Decline reason:

Your use of the word 'encyclopedic' is incorrect, as far as I can see from your editing history. You should read more policy and guideline pages and observe how good articles are written, and request unblocking again after you can explain why your edits were not useful. And in general, when you start getting warnings, you should stop whatever you are doing until you understand why other editors object to it, not ignore the warnings and persist in forcing your changes through. You are not ready for unblocking yet; you haven't yet showed that you understand how to edit usefully.— FisherQueen (Talk) 12:51, 22 September 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I admit my initial editing history may not have been for the good of specific articles, but I feel that I have made a decent contribution to a variety of medical entries with my own medical experience and knowledge. I think it is unfair that after some time I have finally been banned from editing not for vandalism but for replacing a section of the Blue Coat article on a subject which is very special to me which had previously been dismissed by an unknown administrator as 'dubious'. Also, since this is a blanket ban, rather than a temporary or more specific ban, I have no means by which to prove that I can edit articles intelligently.

Decline reason:

Your request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

  • Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
  • Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
  • Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =)
  • Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
  • When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
    • If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. — Navou banter 19:08, 23 September 2007 (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.

I don't believe you're a vandalism-only account, however I'm not totally sure that you're willing to contribute outside this topic. Perhaps if you could suggest some edits you'd like to make, I'll discuss lifting the block. --Haemo 01:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my other edits seem to have been without logging in, and so these are not visible on my edit history. For example, i suggested the following for an article originally entitled jock itch:

Title

For a medical article, surely it is incorrect to use the lay-term 'jock itch' rather than the correct medical term 'tinea cruris' in the title, especially as the article then gives symptoms/signs, diagnosis, treatment in the style of a medical article. I feel that the use of jock itch is no more scientific than using crotch rot as the title. I suggest the jock itch term is removed from the title and replaced with 'tinea cruris', and a redirect added for a jock itch search.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.44.214 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 June 2007

I also suggest that the article Athlete's foot should have a name change to tinea pedis to keep this in line with wikipedia policy on using the correct medical terms.Swarvellous dude 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article Pheochromocytoma needs a simplified introduction, since this relies on complex medical terms unlikely to be understood by anyone who is not already an expert on the topic such as "secretes excess adrenaline" instead of "secretes excessive amounts of catecholamines, usually epinephrine and norepinephrine." It would also be useful to point out that the beta-blockers are not just used for surgical treatment, and would also help counteract the hypertension experienced with the condition by reducing the cardiac output.Swarvellous dude 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Crohn's disease makes no mention of the potentially fatal complication of toxic megacolon, a condition in which blockage of the bowel caused by the disease causes buildup of food and gas which presents as a massivly distended abdomen and can result in a bowel perforation.Swarvellous dude 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Adenoviridae makes no mention of the use of adenovirus as an oncogenic agent, which is suprising as this is a promising potential treatment for cancer patients. It also fails to mention the use of adenovirus as a viral vector and its possible use in the treatment of genetic disease, or any other biotechnical use for the virus, even though adenovirus is the most widely studied in this respect and the most used in experimental treatment. There is also no mention of the role of adenovirus in causing certain cancers by interference with the cell cycle and p53, and the use that vaccines against these viruses can have in the prevention of some cancers. Swarvellous dude 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Done! This is your 2nd chance, so good luck! --Haemo 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Haemo 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarvellous_dude&oldid=1142791378"