User talk:Vurrath

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Vurrath! Thank you for your contributions. I am MartinPoulter and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Tony Blair (disambiguation)[edit]

I reverted your edit] to the article because a disambiguation page is not the place for a fictional depiction of a real-life character; otherwise we could add every instance when someone happened to portray Tony Blair. I'm guessing the character that appeared in The New Statesman was supposed to be Blair, since Margaret Thatcher, Neil Kinnock and a few others appeared. The place for this is Cultural depictions of Tony Blair, where there is a whole list of television series and films in which people have played him. Hope this helps. This is Paul (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY ;

It is not a fictional-description ... the character, is fictional. my edit , was to create linkage per PUBLISHED content / popular content , valid political satire/absurdity , not some individual's blog-page mentioning - your conjugation of "fictional depction" suggests that WHAT , was on the disambiguation page , was invalid , by your 'creative' use of the word fictional there ... but if what you meant to say was that because the chracter was fictional , that is not belonging on pages that would not be ... non-ficiton about blair ... rrrright .... then that is fine , and id agree with you , as much as i might not like blair, say.

But the diambiguation pages , are not pages for non-fiction refernces only - indeed , politicians sometimes deliberately USE , fiction , to draw attention to themselves , or laugh off and seem able to handle 'a bit' , of chracterisations , in a mature way.

saying that WHAT was on the ambiguation page , was itself invalid , would seem to be incondistent with what would happen on a disambiguation page for a cartoon , or a fantasy-writer , or a political cartoonist's ONE WAY , links , out , TOWADS , other pages.

what i mean is , if say on a cartoonist's page , there was a link GOING TO, pages non-fiction , for refernce / re-direction , were they invalid for WHOME is in the content-matter of the representation within the cartoon / intended satire/absurdity and WHO is not ... a cartoon with a fat-pants jollyman , linked to margret thatcher , but with a Mypage descriptin mataphising fatness of-something ... that'd be a definate NO ... then there would be no reason to ... agreed.

BUT a deliberate , and within a popular , PUIBLISHED series , chracter , though only in it for one episode , is in fact a perfect VALID character , though minor - itd be like removing a charcter from shakespear from the credits , just because theyre only in it for one scene.

do you do that , or are they just another of the names at the bottom end of the list somewhere.

You speak as if the tony blair page , is ONLY FOR , the poltician, tony blair - what about OTHER , tony blairs ?

or other things , that have the name , but are not of/for , the well-known, individual, person/personage ?

WHERE , i created what i created , was not on the page for tony blair ... the disambiguation page for the search term tony blair .... that is a SERPATE PAGE , functionally ... is it not ? is not, OF , pages , FOR , tony blair the politician ... just like the frustrations of a busy librarian who go nuts doing shelving for John brown the doctor , john brown the ear nose the throat specialst ... john brown the gnome-placement specialist ... etc

it is a page for the search result / for MORE , than things relating to the poltician.

this , is not, OF , things , OF , the politican - it is OF , a chraracter BASED ON ... one.

DIFFERENTIATE.

it is for the equivalent of SHELVING , for the frustrated librarian. NOTHING MORE.

you are bringing up things , that are ... "more' . i did not.

the new statesman, is a validly then, shalved , publication , and so AS ARE ITS CHARACTERS.

again , the disambiguation page , is NOT ONLY , for the poltician.

ie , another tony blair , a doctor ... gets a page or two...

the POINT of a disambiguation page , is to DIFFERENTIATE , between the different things with the same name...

not to be a SPACE for perceived as more valid than others references to and fro legit tony blair the poltician , pages.

and on that , the refreence i made , DID NOT refer , link , TO , tony blair - it linked, TO , the new statesman page ... which FOR , a character of the series , is perfectly valid.

Youre really trying to downplay the importance of inclusions of such background characters , but you have no right to.

while the disambiguation pages MIGHT , get tediously long ... they might also get TOO SHORT , when people remove things that have valid THEATRICAL reference / referrability / validity / whatever.

imagine you go into a library , and you want to remember something you onl just caught a GLIMPSE of ... instead of walking down the street next to the globe theatre , its passing a tv in a tv shop window;

you dont know the names of the actors, the name of the series , OR, even whether its a tv series or a movie , or whatever - just a passing glimpse ... an advertisement for something youre familiar with , but has been re-TOLD ... and youre interested in it , so you decide to look it up.

or try to.

but because of people like you paul , you can't find , the minor / character reference , that for whatever moment's of value value's worth ... was what attracted you to it !

no ... without PUBLISHED value , every blog's mention , i agree...

but neglect the small things , and you end up with a tedious italian opera with decaprio and whoever she was's cheesy noses in your face for 1 & 1/2 hours ... a sinking franchise with a sinking premise of how long will it last ?

IT is not exaggeration , to say , that minor chracters , unlike stunt doubles , have value in a wider sense than participation , in complete cast and crew lists, etc.

CHARACTERS , however minor , when removed, crete the kind of bleak , empty, delosate predictabilities , of tedious in the desert ... 'dramas' , that homogenise and make EASY, to predict , what should remain UNknowable ,UNpredicatable ... and i hope i dont have to explain what i mean by that.

REMOVE chracters from their valid positions aside , alongside , main ones , and all of the sudden the main ones don't seem quite so great!

or in Bstard's case ... well ... not so great.

05:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Vurrath/REW

June 2016[edit]

Once again I have reverted your edit to Tony Blair (disambiguation), because our guidelines at WP:DABRELATED are very clear: "Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. For example, a use of the term "set" is discussed in the article on Volleyball, so Set (disambiguation) legitimately includes "Set, the second contact in volleyball". The article The New Statesman does not contain any reference to a minor character by the name of Tony Blair, so reference to it should not be included on the page Tony Blair (disambiguation). Hope that makes things clear. This is Paul (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question[edit]

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply presumably intended to link to #quick end-of-page-link not working / malfucntional report, rather than to #Reference to Africans as Black African.. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Talk:Jenova Chen[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to accuse people of crimes, real or imagined. Doing so without a reliable source violates the WP:BLP policies on how we handle living people, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPTALK. Your edits have been reverted and the revisions deleted; if you persist in adding them you may be blocked from editing. I understand that you believe yourself to be a victim of a crime, but Wikipedia, articles or talk pages, is not the place to pursue justice or bring light to your issue. --Pres N 02:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

applause yes yes, very 'pro'...[edit]

oh you are a practiced, 'dragon', aren't you?

obsessive, i would say.

you do not HESITATE, to characterize me... yet defend the would-be integrity/fame of another, without hesitation. WHY.

i have rights to NOT BE ASSUMED to be the things that you have characterized, ALSO.

unfortunately, you are NOT, correct, about whether or not ISSUES OF INTEREST , ie, Chen being a crimainal, if he were, hypothetically...

WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE... of interest / issue , for a page about him.

my contribution, was not of ;

1 accusation - it was a statement of LOGICAL SOURCING of the source of the idea, of Journey... which DOES have a original source, coming from the Stromlo High school...

2 imagination - quite obvious what you're trying to do there.

3 reliable source - citations, are for appearances OF FACT, on the main pages - if a person's REASONS, for suggesting that a person accused of a crime, should appear UNRESOLVED...

they are ;

3-2 NOT, asking, that they appear resolved, AS, guilty.

THEREFORE it is not invalid to ask that they be portrayed correctly. ie, my accusation is not being DONE, here... it has been FORMALLY done, but Chen has not been CONVICTED YET.

4 Chen's issue... his criminality ... is not (my) "your issue"

it is OF, unreolved actions against him, that fall WITHIN the HISTORY of the individual's progression in gaming / interactions with others, etc.

It is relevant to EMPLOYERS ... TRUST-using bodies... etc

to PRETEND, as though TRUST USING BODIES... do not have a right to know the truth, in favour of your assuming portrayals of me... says a lot more, about you, than it does me.

Keep your ABUSE OF POWERS, to yourself.

i can report you just as much as you can report me, mate.

i will not hesitate to bring TRUST USING BODIES... whenever it is (would be) relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurrath (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sig...[edit]

sorry, yeah, i am too casual, i know.

but i DO try to minimise / truncate what i try adding to MAIN ARTICLE pages.

careless on the talk pages,.. rrrrrmphh.

Vurrath (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Further rant emails of that sort will be deleted unread. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked you for WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the help request pages, are not someWHERE, where one is "contributing"[edit]

contrary to my reasons to post what i should not have by well KNOWN, information about Jeoneva Chen, even tho i know it to be true,

i AM, commited to contribute to Wikipedia actually,

and for someone to make conclusions about all my pages, when assessing a speicfic conflict resolution request,

AS, negative, as though I, am the troll,

is quite ludicrously short-tempered, and indiscriminate in the extreme.

WHERE, can one go, then, to request arbitration? , if not the arbitration pages?

you clearly have not read my posts in detail, but by comparison, have only turned a seeking-perfection reading glasses nose, upon my format.

my detail sin my help request, were true in every regard.

Elm may well have mates that have deleted the history of it, but to deny all failures and PRETEND, as though you are all perfect in your capacities, even to the extend of IMPOSSIBILITIES of HOW QUICKLY, you could've read my posts...

is evidence enough, as far as im concerned, to never want to use Wikipedia again.

it was no more than 5m before you blocked me, and claimed your rediculous claim, that a help-page, is a place to be "contributing".

and all of these?[edit]

i suppose then by your not-at-all prejudicial / impatient assessment ( <5m minutes reading),

most of these topics contributed-to,

are not "intending" ... to contribute?

Behavioral economics , Greenhouse gas , Absorption of water , Eroticism , Curaçao and Dependencies , Brushtail possum , Pseudocheiridae , Democracy , Admission ‎ , Pacific garbage patch , Miscarriage , Legal person , Vine , Microfluorimetry , Maturity (psychological) ‎ , Stomp (strike) , Emotional or behavioral disability , United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 , Nebulae in fiction , Plume hunting , Reprisal ‎ , Geophysics , articracy ‎ , Project Cybersyn ‎ , Xeriscaping , Reformism ‎ , Harold Holt ‎ , Netizen , Akashi Motojiro , Causeway Bay Books disappearances , Bangladesh , Decision-making , Reduced affect display , Reformism , Naturalistic decision-making ‎ , List of phobias ,

your prejudice and amount of time SPENT, is more, than disencouraging, AS OF, fair oppertunity / patience / willingness, to actually DO, what Wikipedia policies SAY, you should.

where is the going back to an assumption of innocence / incapacity, RATHER, than an assumption of deliberate intent?

pfffffffffff, think what you will.

You are aware that we can all see every contribution you've made, and see that none of the above is true and that there are only five pages to which you've ever contributed anything? ‑ Iridescent 16:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH.

When logged into the account.

Rather than through an IP trace / device ownership?

another technicality,

you're ASSUMING DISTRUST rather than being OPEN MINDED again. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Intel would be able to bring light to the claim, in some hypothetical where the chose to give a sh**.

You guys clearly do not, you use DIStrust by default,

almost EVERY time!

Wikipedia is NOT a safe place to debate, NOR contribute, even-when better than some. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

none?[edit]

rrrright , over estimation, if what you've checked is true...

but you say, none?

gee, you go to so much effort, to really ADDRESS my points, in great detail, don't you?

another mere simplification-would be. i WOULD, be saying nothing that is true.

nice.

that simple, huh?

are YOU, aware, that your comments, that simplify, are just-as, observable, as mine would be, that would ALLLLL, be untue?

im not the one exaggerating, then trying to use FEAR, of scrutiny. im up for an argument, are you?

all you seem to WANT OTHERS, to trust, is your use of "none".

To spell it out in detail, the only pages you've ever edited in your entire history here are Behavioral economics, Tony Blair (disambiguation), IPT, Pseudocheiridae, Admission and Common brushtail possum. Since not a single one of these appears on the list of pages you claim to have edited, then yes, none of your claim is true. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim to've edited all those pages,

i claimed to've made suggestions/prospect contributions WITHOUT editing the page, in the TALK pages,

quite distinctly, FYI, in terms of addressing the false-claim that i (for the most part) made edits to the main pages.\

For the most part, with only one or 2 emotional exceptions, deliberately adding to the talk page,

RATHER THAN,

is both understanding and abiding by NOT editing the main pages,

That was my point in combination, with whether or not Wikipedia has a DIFFERENTIATING policy

towards one rather than the other,

and that is STILL,

what you / wikipedia as a whole, is avoiding,

in relation to the actions of-the-WHOLE,

rather than whichever individuals who've not understood it's own policy / chosen to act on values their-own. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hah! one minute, only editing is contributing, the next, both edits AS WELL, as suggestions on the talk page, are also - i did not MEAN, only edits, obviosuly.

why are you pretending as tho deliberately to be read and considered BY OTHERS... suggestions, should have to be edits, to count? i did not MEAN, only official edits, in a editor/editors, sense, of Wikipedia's processes/definitions - i meant in a BROADER, or normal sense of making suggestions. is that to say that i expect, that they should all be adopted? of course not... my point is about INTENT.

none of you have had any right, to pretend as though you 'knew' ... what my intentions were. my Jenova Chen edit, was the exception, of which i have not continued to debate the removal, and explained my personal emotional reasons.

SUGGESTIONS, in a broader sense, DO, contribute.

that is undeniable, but instead of acknowledging this, you persist with the ridiculous pretence, that all wikipedia TALK page contributors, are ALSO, as committed to regular page edits, in the same way as Wikipedia would ASK EVERYONE, to edit main pages.

that is by comparison, EXPLICITY un-true, and Wikipedia makes a point, of talk pages, being WHERE... to do everything else... suggestions, etc.

i did not MEAN, regular edit contributions, so why focus on only them?

it's also ridiculous to pretend that you can judge someone's INTENT, based on quantity.

who do you think you are, to pretend that quantity, somehow equates with evidence of intent? utterly irrelevant. procedures for trust, are not proofs of knowledge of intent.

they stop at guesses / measures of prevention, by shooting-first-asking-questions-later.

when you pretend that someone who has made one bad edit, of intent... who admitted their error, and then highlighted they personal reasons for the breach, and non-objection to the removal...

as someone who 'always' does that,

then all you do is scare people away, from your impatience and unreasonableness and gross competency/fitness for your responsibilities, to BE,.. patient enough to actually read things properly, and to go back on your own errors, when assessing people.

not everyone... IS... the perfect wiki-editor.

and when you know, you aren't, as i do,.. i / one can make suggestions, in the talk pages, for OTHERS... to then act on, if it's a good suggestion.

that's what i have tried doing... for most of that list of edits & talk-page edits.

letting others consider the suggestions.

if you so impatient, that you can't even go through suggestions without letting people make up their own minds about each others' suggestions...

then why have the process at all?

Vurrath (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were indefinitely blocked by user:Bbb23 as not having the competence to edit Wikipedia. You were given instructions on how to appeal the block at that time. Posts like the above will not get you unblocked, and may even contribute to keeping you blocked. Meters (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all our IP talk page contributions continue to get read, and over-time, TURN INTO, main page contributions.

One admin/reviewer's temporary, sleep-deprived, dealing with a massive inbox-pile,

temporary shoot-first-ask-questions-later careless INdiscriminations,

equate to competence, do they?

And where are these definitions of Wikipedia's required competencies then?

Again,

When contributing to the TALK PAGES,

there ARE NO competencies.

Main pages, yes,

and again,

except for the 2 emotional ones where i've not done as i was INTENDING,

of that list of pages above, and others since, also IP logging,

they're ALL on the talk pages.

And THAT = i DO know what the policy is,

did KNOW, past tense, back then,

what it was,

and all the attempted character-assassination in the world,

cannot change,

you cannot DEFINE,

what my intentions were.,

nor re-define,

what wikipedia has of an open-door, when it comes to the talk pages.,

as-of, WHO, not what - what needs to be relevant,

but not-who.

Main pages, in terms of competence,

i could not agree more!

ofc course main pages need to be well formatted, referenced, etc

Trying to portray me as not understanding that, has already been attempted,

and i have already addressed the fact that i've known that in all the years i've read and used Wikipedia.

You're still FOCUSING on would-bes of me,

and not on the difference between what applies to main pages,

and what does NOT apply, to talk pages.

The accusation i made of Jenova Chen,

has been (should've been) recorded in both Australia, HK, China, and the USA.

---

No wonder you're in denial.

presumably it still only exists in Chinese/HK records.

I thought the USA tried to ATTRACT inventors?

The irony. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yep, i know, but nothing-but assumptions of proper USE, of powers to, also assumes correct/proper usage of them, in terms of impact - persisting with 'comply-or' ... ultimatums, WHEN a person is asking for a slower, step by step assessment, and not a rush-job ... only further demonstrates the unwillingness of the person with the position of authority, as someone not willing to spend the TIME, on the claim.

NORMAL people, do not have the desire nor time, to know every single procedural expectation - they are reasonable people, when it comes to reasonable requests OF them.

when you assume too much of normal people, you will not GET, what you want from us.

Vurrath (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Law of holes. I'm done. Meters (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mmm,

as-well-as the law of don't goto people, don't TRUST people,

who don't goto EFFORT in humility, to reverse their own mistakes,

and mis-deeds, of only-one of their multi-headed troll / MPD like behaivours,

---

but cannot ADMIT to their imperfections.

Doesn't the,..

Jenohvan? Oops! my mistake!

Jehovan ... magic book you so HONESTLY abide by,

have something in there about vanity?

pretty sure it does. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point about someone being accused of plagarism/theft , BEFORE being found guilty,

does NOT breach any false information repute laws,

COMPARED, to if i'd said that he has-stolen.

That is ofc my opinion,

but it is NOT what i put in the talk page. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists / media,

reports on POI / prominent people,

"having been accused",

all the time.

---

Would you/wikipedia say,

that EVERY single one of those,

is libellous?

Presumably the American definition of libellous differs from the ACTUALLY-FREE 'free world', when it comes to the media. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's self-interested because i am also the person claiming to've been stolen FROM,

but it is in INJUSTICE,

and IGNORING injustice,

makes one the inadvertent PARTY-TO it,

when you turn a blind eye. to it's possibility.

---

Doesn't mean you're necessarily doing something UNreasonable as-a-publisher,

also doesn't mean that you're not making the mountain even more difficult for the victim, to climb. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another metaphor, for you, then

digging a hole at the bottom of that mountain,

is not level, or even, or fair-chance, between similar mountains,

---

it becomes a TRAP. 120.21.132.102 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... better metaphor, since there should be no level ground between mountains of injust mis-info...

mm...

ADDING holes at the bottom of chasms-between different mountains of mis-info, with only the occasional mountian of proper info, that has climbing ropes, pitons already nailed in,

does not allow one to find a path to the one you need to get to.

In my case it would be some near-impossible school records one,

that would then lead to my old school making a claim with me, one of us, the 2nd party.

OK, hypothetical, AFTER All that,

i can THEN reference my success in court,

bingo bango boingo... you lot can than go on, about how you knew you were right about wiki policy when it comes to MAIN PAGES, alllll along.

---

Great!

Shame i was talking about TALK PAGES!!!!!! 120.21.132.102 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could be that simple, could be. could also be reasonable surprise on our part, as normal users, that quantity of detail in argument, will not be ambiguated / mis-identified, as intent,.. in disruption.

ie, when quantity can become disrupting, it's not INTENDING,.. 'unless you work-here' ... you wouldn't know...

not intending,.. unless you do,

to do as we're characterised AS.

fair go,.. that's not INTENT.

you will and likely have, made many thousands of people feel the same way.

where can we go, from here? we get dealt with AS,.. deliberately doing one thing rather than another, and also can't get back to normal contributions, when we get sick of it too. today i only logged in (when forgetting i was blocked) ... to make a heads-up / note about a hyperlink being old/un-useable.

Unrealistic expectations of us, will not fix a systematic problem, with, tho when short of time, if the difference lies in the portrayal of how much time/commitment, you SAY, you have, to proper judgement, with all the very impressive pages after pages after pages, of HOW, things should be happen,

if then one actually GETS, so little, that you might save yourselves a lot MORE, time, by simply emphasising more, for people to not argue in quantity, unless asked to, or some other process-filtration, ermmm... stoppage-method,..

to prevent us from posting a lot, so we don't inadvertently annoy you, as i have.

even now, as i acknowledge that,.. there is the potential mistake in thinking that i have done so DELIBERATELY.

"clearly not intending to contribute" ?

no. naive in thinking you'll have limitless patience when you're busy, sure,.. but that was a MIS-use of bob's powers, to DESCRIBE me.

saying i have posting/editing competency problems, is probably accurate - im not arguing that,.. ive acknowledged that many times.

but to then do a TOTAL ban, when someone being annoying by persistence/Socrates-Gadfly like behaviour...

( how about don't be a Gadfly! ( in the introductions for new members ))

really isn't getting me right.

and now i can't even do a hyperlink update.

were half of the ppl who've assessed me since this ridiculous situation started... had actually UNDERSTOOD, the intent of my suggestions, they would've seen, some other link updates, or other minor suggestions.

how is that, 'only' ... within what bob has simplified/pigeonholed me into?

no. nothing you or anyone else, can say, including Assange himself, can change, my INTENT, when normally suggesting/editing. my emotional-state when it came to the Jenova Chen one, was the exception.

persistences with 'our' experience, in identifying you... the inexperienced users...

will only FURTHER alienate us and prevent us from being able to come back into the fold of 'usually' flawed... posts.

usually flawed posts, is what you CHOOSE, to accept from us, already.

it is then much more likely, to be PATIENCE, rather than 'experience', with-you (us the users)

Vurrath (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is this sort of gibberish that triggered the indefinite block. No reason for it to continue. I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]