User talk:Asante90

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asante90, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Asante90! 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! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Ancient Egyptian race controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Stop reverting on this article and discuss your edits on the article talk page. Talk page discussion does not give you leave to edit war. If you continue you will be blocked. Tiderolls 19:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone of my edits are legit, sourced and relevant to the subject section that I post them in. Doug has for years (scroll through the archives) allowed blatant fallacies and clearly misinterpreted statements stand in place on the page. I recently brought up every one of these fallacies on the talk page of the article, and Doug offers NO dialogue as to why they were even in place (HE DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES WITH THE ARTICLE WHEN RAISED IN THE TALK PAGE) I'm about to report that this "good ole boy" biased attitude on this page is preventing factual and relevant information from being put in that article. Censorship of relevant facts that certain people don't like is not how Wikipedia works...SIR! Asante90 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. He iro 19:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiderolls 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned not to edit the page pending consensus being reached on the article talk page. You have convinced me that either you do not understand Wikipedia:Edit warring or you do not care what the policy represents. I will watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Tiderolls 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Asante90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The issue that I am having with some other editors on the page in question that they are undoing my contributions but don't want to discuss their reasons for doing so on the talk page, even when I set the discussion in place. [1] The dispute at hand is the under the Robert Bauval section. Notice that none of the editors who have undone my contributions have yet to comment or explain why they don't belong. When they don't attempt to engage in dialogue over this issue then aren't they the one's who are the cause of the "edit war"?

Decline reason:

Warned, continued, blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You were warned and you continued after being reverted by multiple editors. "Cause" is not an issue. Tiderolls 21:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Ancient Egyptian race controversy, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. With [2] you changed sourced text and removed the wikilink to Land of Punt. The original text said "to the south-east of Egypt." which was backed by the sources. You changed this to read "in the South Eastern region of Egypt." which is inaccurate and not backed by the sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

It's pretty clear that you haven't built a consensus to include your proposed changes to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. Please refrain from reverting or you will, once again, be blocked for edit warring. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy this user has not breached?

This user is involved in a clear edit war against multiple editors, attacked other editors and his edits leave a great deal to be desired. He was invited to the Tea House 3 days ago, and since then it has been anything but that... It seems that Wikipedia will only have 2 pillars left by the time this is over. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling editors Klan members and racists is a really, really bad idea

And an ignorant one. I was with King at Selma. Don't even start. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing what throwing bricks at his head?Asante90 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]