User talk:Havardperson

May 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What is standard that "did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted" << ?

If i am said to you that "Your not appear to be contrucgive, Are you able agree?"

If not provide current standard, I am not be able agree that retrive. Havardperson (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The police and prosecutor from Society, They must be given reason that specific standard.

But your opinion only "I think you are not constructive from just my think", Is this able agree? Havardperson (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I will suggest to you, If you trying anything edit, Can i able retrived from only my think? As reason that you are not constructive edit? Havardperson (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am again retrived, And when you give currently reason, I am consider changed from my edit. Ok? Havardperson (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Tell me that what isn't correct from

policies and guidelines, You are not specific explain. Havardperson (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am reading "contributing constructively to this encyclopedia" But i am not find, What is problem? Havardperson (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

When you retrived, Tell me first with currently reason, Not contructived edit is your standard, I am not finding problem by police guide and rules. Havardperson (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If not have guide, Give me problem of sentence and tell me why not constructive information? Havardperson (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, a number of your edits took grammatical sentences and rearranged them in a way that made no grammatical sense. This is the sort of edit that is referred to as unconstructive. It is distinguished from vandalism by intent – an unconstructive edit is assumed to be a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia that didn't work.

If your edits are reverted as unconstructive (or for other reasons) and you feel they were an improvement, you should follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle – you made a bold edit, it was reverted, the next stage is to discuss it. The best place for this is on the talk page of the article in question, where you can put the reason for why you think the change should be made, and others can chime in with their opinions and suggestions. What you shouldn't normally do is simply revert the other editor's reversion to re-insert your edit, this is what's known as edit warring, and is generally a bad thing. Robminchin (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi can you tell me that why only my action vandalism? Other people same edit, but why only my action is vandalism? And uncontructive? I think your comment is uncontructive and vandalism. Are you able agreement? Havardperson (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edits - in articles and here in your Talk page - are not correct English. You must be able to write correct English to contribute to this encyclopedia. If you cannot do that, you may want to edit an encyclopedia in a language that is more familiar to you. ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What? I think your English isn't correctly English, My high school firend is able understand that my English. It is reference ( V + S + O gramatical rule from public rule ).

You need must current English that V + S + O, Havardperson (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Additional : ( Subject ) + V ( verb ) + O ( Object ). I am ( Subject ) + Use ( Verb ) + current English ( Object ), But you ( Subject ) + not use ( Verb ) + Current English ( Object ), Are you understand? Havardperson (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ElKevbo (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is English the primary language that you use to communicate? Your posts here seem to suggest that it is not, and if that is the case, you should edit the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a bit confused as Havardperson has created a global userpage on meta and already has a kowiki account since less than an hour after their enwiki registration. Whether this is trolling or a gross overestimation of one's abilities, a block seems to be the only way forward. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am ( Subject ) + think ( Verb ) +, Not be problem to me ( Object ). = S+V+O ( = Currently English ). Havardperson (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me why? There is only your opinion? or have specific standard? Havardperson (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

At the present time, you lack the competence to write English language prose at an acceptable level. Your errors are obvious and glaring to people whose first language is English. Occasional errors are fine but constant errors are disruptive. I suggest that you edit productively in the Wikipedia in your first language while continuing your study of the English language. Appeal your block only when your English abilities are significantly improved. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)