User talk:64.222.110.145

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Local food. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

On the contrary I was actually correcting incorrect information. The proper form of word is "localvore" a portmanteau of the english word "local" and the suffix "-vore", Latin meaning 'to devour'. It is not "locavore" which would be a portmanteau of "loca", which is Spanish for crazy and "-vore". That is something completely different! I appreciate your concern and I know that you reverted my edit in good faith, I can assure you there are no hard feelings :) Happy editing! 64.222.110.145 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is, not what you consider to be the correct form, but what the source states. According to the source, a dictionary listed "locavore" as a word of the year. If tyou think ythe dictionary is wrong, argue with them; if you think the newspaper is wrong, argue with them. In either case, our role here is to repeat what a reliable source stated, not to "correct" this. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, That isn't what the source says, please see the talk page before reverting my edits. 64.222.110.145 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is: "Last year, the New Oxford American Dictionary picked locavore as its word of the year."RolandR (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that source. Well it's a pity the dictionary couldn't get it right, but if that's how it stands, then we ought to include it, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I figured it was just some troll with a bee in their bonnet about local foods trying to make it seem crazy. 64.222.110.145 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Local food. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Roland, did you read what i just wrote here? You're getting all in a tizzy about nothing. Why can't I post any comments on your talk page? 64.222.110.145 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Very, very funny, I strongly suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet

64.222.110.145 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Keir Hardie. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

um..

I'm pretty sure that talk:pages can't be vandalised (aside from blanking) so what's this all about? 64.222.110.145 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. In a nutshell, it ts all about your persistent disruptive editing, as you have already been made aware. RashersTierney (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This has bugger all to do with my "disruptive" edits to the Spire, so I'm afraid your opportunistic twopence isn't required, Rashman.64.222.110.145 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

which by the way aren't actually "disruptive" at all. They are factual, firmly based upon reliable sources and seem to reflect consensus, based on the talk page discussion64.222.110.145 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In case it slipped your notice the reason why that article is semi-protected again is because of your sustained disruption. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? No. It's because you recruited an administrator to act as a meatpuppet for your pov-pushing. Exactly what do you mean by "sustained"?