BouledeSuif

BouledeSuif, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BouledeSuif! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Phonological history of British, etc.

Please use your user space or the sandbox for test edits. I moved BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British to your user space earlier (User:BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British), and that's where you can work on the article until it is ready to be published in main space. ... discospinster _talk 19:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Now you've destroyed both pages. Please reestablish my work you've just destroyed. BouledeSuif (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I restored one to your user space (User:BouledeSuif/Phonological history of British 2), while the other one is still there (see my original comment). ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all sure you are competent to edit - 350 additions of the word "well"?

You made a mess of Ambrosius Aurelianus. There was no such person as "Uther Pïndragoon". There are no such words as "survïvperhapss" or " transfperhapsmed". Scattering 350 "well"s throughout the article - what's that about?

Then there's the quote: ""... a gentleman who, perhaps alone of the Romans, had survived the shock of this notable storm. Certainly his parents, who had worn the purple, were slain in it. His descendants in our day have become greatly inferior to their grandfather's [avita] excellence. Under him our people regained their strength, and challenged the victors to battle. The Lord assented, and the battle went their way. "

You changed it to

", well,, well,, well, a gentleman who, perhaps alone of the Romans, had survïved the shock of thïs notable stperhapsm, well, Certaïnly hïs parents, who had wperhapsn the purple, were slaïn ïn ït, well, Hïs descendants ïn our day have become greatly ïnferïperhaps to theïr grand also, adïtïonally, father's [avïta] excellence, well, Under hïm our people regaïned theïr strength, and also, adïtïonally, challenged the vïctperhapss to battle, well, The Lperhapsd assented, and also, adïtïonally, the battle went theïr way, well, "

I'd like an explanation for this. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This is funny, but I figured out the pattern. They clearly used ctrl+F to replace every instance of "or" with "perhaps" which created nonsense words, every regular "i" with a 2 dot "i", and every period "." to the "well,", that's why 3 periods changed to 3 wells at the beginning. Interesting edits, albeit poorly conceived. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ... discospinster _talk 12:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, first of all sorry for the damage that seems to have been made to that page I was banned for. I know this sounds untenable but I was the victim of some sort of hack. I have changed my password accordingly. Those edits were not made by me, indeed I had no access to a computer at the timestamps. You will see that my previous edits were to personal pages I was intending to upload for the good of the Wikipedia, to publish Adams (and others, I do not support WP:Bias) work on the other Vulgar Latins, to match the page "Phonological History of French" for the Spanish language, Catalan, Portuguese (possibly merged with Spanish as they were intelligible dialects until at least 1000 AD), British and Mosellian Latins, even a small page on African Latin developments Adams et Al guesses at. The only one remotely related to Ambrosius Aurelianus would be the British Latin phonology page I currently have, but I can assure you I would not vandalise a page in my area of interest, it would be perverse and idiotic. Not to mention whoever edited those pages then went on to edit a pornographic page, which I have no interest in editing or seeing. I hope this can be amended, if not I understand why, what happened was unacceptable if out of my hands. Thank you. BouledeSuif (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:GOTHACKED. We don't unblock accounts that may have been WP:COMPROMISED. only (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #18763 was submitted on Jul 17, 2017 19:07:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)