User talk:Editguy111

Welcome!

Hello, Editguy111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Yahweh, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Amalek. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editguy111, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Editguy111! 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! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some reading for you

You really need to read our polices at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, and for guidance on sources, WP:RS. I think once you do this you will understand why your edits were reverted (not just by me). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Philo 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article talk page, and comment there. Although WP:BRD is not policy, it would be the only thing that would support your first edit to the article, as the sources aren't there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:23, 1 November 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Editguy111 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: ). Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Philo. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herodias

You seem to be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. You have added unsourced material to an article, and added it back without discussion on the talk page, even though asked to do so. The 'sources' you have added are not reliable sources. One is to Wikipedia, which as I have explained is not considered a reliable source for itself and which you have restored despite this being explained to you. The other citation is original research, since it does not state the point you are making, which is a personal interpretation of the source. Despite my attempts to accommodate your views, you have reverted everything and accused me of 'defacing and vandalising' which is uncivil and unhelpful. I suggest you spend some time learning about the rules of Wikipedia before doing any further editing.--Rbreen (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

censorship

why have I been suspended form editing? Herodias was an Edomite her father was her husband's father was, she was a Herodian why are you trying to revert something that was obviously, provably, and historically true? why do you have such a problem with admitting she was an Edomite? I mean what is the big fucking deal here? I am just trying to be historically accurate Herodias was an Edomite your bitch fits are not going to change this historical fact https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Herodian_Dynasty

Signing

Hello, it helps everyone sign comments with four tildes ~ ~ even on your own Talk page above. Also if you want to alert User:Rbreen or User:Bbb23 to your reply, you need to enclose in [ [User : ] ], but "bitch fits" probably come under WP:NPA. As regards your edits reverts on Talk:Satan it's on my watchlist, when I see a competent editor like User:Editor2020 reverting additions I expect other User to discuss on article Talk page. Which you should do, good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Scythians. You have been asked before not to add unsourced material to articles. Changing the factual content of sentences that have a footnote with a source attached to it to something that is clearly not backed up by the source is extremely disruptive to the extent of vandalism. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I mistook your edit for deliberate vandalism but by the number of warnings on your talk page you should know by now that such edits are most disruptive and constitute bad practice at the very least. So please don't be surprised if it got mistaken for bad-faith editing. My warning to block you is still standing though so please be more careful next time you change some referenced article content. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Mandala 9. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some things you should have learned by now

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
Vandalism is defined as a deliberate attempt to mess up the site. It does not include real accidents (although competence is required), nor does it include someone trying to improve the encyclopedia in a way you disagree with.
Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.
Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.

In short, stick to paraphrasing and summarizing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic works by authors in relevant fields (i.e. actual historians). The Rig Veda IS a primary source and not a work of history (if you don't believe me, you're welcome to go to WP:RSN or WP:NORN and get laughed at). Ammianus Marcellinus's works are likewise primary sources that require interpretation by professional historians, not users of this site. Gendün Chöphel was not an ethnologist, nor a specialist in ancient Indian history -- anything he wrote about outside of Tibetan Buddhist views on issues requires a non-primary source.

Your accusation of lying does qualify as a personal attack. I'm seeing years of problems from you and very little useful behavior. Change that now.

Ian.thomson (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blond. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Blond. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

= I'm aware you're already blocked, but this applies after the block finishes

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Ian.thomson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your latest personal attacks and edit warring

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editguy111 before editing anywhere else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, after the block expires, you return to edit warring or attacking other editors like this, I will block you indefinitely. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of source redux

Several editors including me have mentioned this. Up at the top of this page is my post pointing you to the relevant links. But you still aren't following our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Editguy111. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Editguy111. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Editguy111. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term problem with a lot of your edits

Given your prior battle to emphasize the supposed blonde-ness of the Aryans, your emphasis on racial distinction between Aryans and Semites, your emphasis on what races are Germanic (redundantly so with the Norse people), and your continual attempts to replace "Jew" with "Judean"... well, combined with the antisemitic slur you used in this edit summary and your claim that Adam Weishaupt was Jewish (an idea rooted in anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and nothing more), it's not hard to see your edits as trying to push a certain unwelcome POV.

I'm having trouble finding any reason to not block you right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]