User talk:Brainiacal

Brainiacal, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Brainiacal! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 727[edit]

Your claim that "engined" is a nonsensical adjective is incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary: "engined, adj.: As the second element in parasynthetic compounds. 1. Now chiefly of an aeroplane: having the specified number of engines." It gives a range of examples of usage, such as "The four-engined ski-shod C-130 landed the next afternoon right on schedule" and "The use of the eight-engined B-52 bombers". Your placement of a semicolon before "both of which are closer in size to the 727-200" is incorrect. That phrase cannot stand alone as a sentence so it needs to be separated from the preceding material by a comma, not a semi-colon. A semi-colon would be fine before something like "Both of these are..." Dricherby (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop? Deleting "are" from "both of which are closer..." is completely ungrammatical: the clause needs a verb. Dricherby (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Chromatophore[edit]

You might want to re-do part of your edit that I reverted, but don't change Darwin's quote this time. I've noticed that you are more fond of hyphenation than I am, which definitely puts you in the "over hyphenation" category of more neutral observers. Compound modifiers at the end of a clause, as opposed to before a noun, do not generally need hyphens. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!--LT910001 (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at User talk:DMacks[edit]

You may want to retract that comment, at least in part. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, which requires civil discourse. Painting another editor as a cartoon villain because the two of you disagree on a matter of wording is not acceptable. Also, if you have been contributing since Wikipedia's beginning days, you should be aware that a claim such as "more proper and meaningful" requires a reliable source to back it up; we cannot just take your personal opinion on the proper use of English. Huon (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence speaks for itself: The "editor" in question sneakily edited the above-referenced page after he asserted a claim on a referring page, for the obvious purpose of modifying the original contents that supported my claim. Furthermore, there would be no need to add a citation to my edit on the page if the original wording on the page had not been tampered with. I agree on the necessity to collaborate, but the "editor" in question dismissed that possibility by his engaging in that certifiable - and, in some situations, criminal - act. There are just some individuals that will go to any extreme in order to manifest their agenda and are, in the end, incorrigible; I know the brain regions involved. Brainiacal (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Amino acid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits show linguistic depth, but I wish you (1) were not rude to other editors; and (2) would be less inflexible about the use of certain adverbs where there is no real ambiguity akin to the "Hopefully, she bought it" type. Tony (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EtymAesthete. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of EtymAesthete (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]