User talk:GammaCepheus001

GammaCepheus001, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Spitsbergen

Why are you changing Spitzbergen to Spitsbergen? For many years the former was the accepted spelling in British English, and it could be anachronistic to change it, especially in articles about people or events before the mid-20th century. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's spelled Spitsbergen. The end. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example of changing a company's name to suit your preference is particularly egregious. We do not change the name of companies to suit our own whims and fancies. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a simpleton. It was discovered by the Dutch. It was named Spitsbergen (not Spitzbergen). Anyone who spells it incorrectly is either German or an imbecile. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling with z was normal in British English for many years, and was used by the Royal Geographical Society, among others. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 'cause the British are lazy imbeciles. Read above. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you couldn't care less? DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess so. Oh irony. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? I couldn't hear you over the sound my next edit. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize how this is going to end, don't you? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Refresh my memory sweetheart xoxox GammaCepheus001 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you move the article again, you will be blocked indefinitely. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see you in two weeks then. xooxox GammaCepheus001 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your threat of continued page move disruptive, I have blocked you indefinitely. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're quick on the trigger. I thought you'd last at least two minutes. They can't all go all night, kiddo. :O GammaCepheus001 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]