User talk:Transcendent28

Orcs and welcome

I see you're new here ....

I removed most of your new material in Orc (Middle-earth) because of the rule against "original research". However reasonable an inference may be, if the author did not say it explicitly, Wikipedia is not the place for conjectures of what various indirect clues might imply.

If, after looking at the rule, you reckon that it does not apply to your material, don't just restore it (that way lies edit war): bring it up on the article's discussion page. We have a jocular name for this process: the bold/revert/discuss cycle.

I hope this does not discourage you from further participation in the wonder that is Wikipedia. —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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 could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Uruk-hai, 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. Just because an article contains O/R is no excuse for introducing more Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Uruk-hai. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 the 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 without further notice. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss on the talk page

If you feel the information belongs on the article, you need to please discuss the material on the article's talk page. Simply hitting "Undo" when multiple editors are telling you the material does not belong is not going to keep the information there, it's just going to end up with you blocked from editing. Please discuss, instead of reverting. Thank you. - SudoGhost 16:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate: In your edit summary [1] you write, "If my quoted additions are OR you might as well delete the whole article." The problem is not the references (though for my taste you have copied far too much of the original text rather than paraphrasing it more succinctly), but rather that you are using them to synthesize your own interpretation of what it means. No one is denying that Tolkien talks about interbreeding men and orcs, but there is no indication in Tolkien's own writing that the Uruk-hai resulted (directly) from such breeding in the Third Age. You are trying to build a case that they did, but that is exactly what WP:OR is talking about. Cheers, -- Elphion (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No indication? Then why did Tolkien have the dead Uruk-hai using human gear in The Two towers? and why did Treebeard wonder about them being a result of crossing men and orcs? Then in his later posthumous notes, we see in Morgoth's ring, Myths transformed, that two kinds of hybrid were indeed formed, Men-Orcs and Orc-men. This seems far more than "No indication". It is a heavy implication that this is confirming the "hints" in The Two Towers that both Uruk-hai and Half-Orcs are crossbreeds. What ever else would he be talking about in this passage? It would not stand to reason that he meant anything else. I think heavy implications like this should count as more than simple "Orignal research" and pass into the world of fact, to all but the most unable of readers. I only stated that there were "hints" that the Uruk-hai were crossbreeds, not absolute certainty on the issue, so you are straw-man arguing with what I wrote. You just delete things because it gives you a thrill, admit it.

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 could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Edititing.

Please discuss your edits rather than just trying to force them through. The Uruk-hai at the Battle of the Hornburg were unique in their lack of fear of the sun, there is zero, absolutely zero evidence that this trait was shared by the original uruks from Mordor. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't edit under an [2] to make your POV seem to have more support. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Uruk-hai‎‎ 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. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Uruk-hai. Eyesnore Summer! (PC) 07:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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) 08:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Transcendent28. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Transcendent28. 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)

November 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alt-right. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you continue to edit war

you'll be reported. Use the talk page and if you don't get consensus drop it or go for dispute resolution. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 12:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that as you have been told by another editor on my talk page, telling you that the alert does not imply that there are any issues to your contributions to date" does not constitute a threat to sanction you. You seem unaware of some of our policies and guidelines but you've taken my advice and stopped editwarring, which is good. Just carry on following our policies and guidelines and you've nothing to worry aout. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Doug Weller that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that discretionary sanctions covers behaviour, not just article edits. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice one. Please stop messaging me. I have no interest in power trippers. Transcendent28 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Transcendent28. 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)

December 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:White privilege are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit[3] was not consistent with wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and bias, continued policy-violating edits will get you blocked from editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Transcendent28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23691 was submitted on Jan 01, 2019 07:39:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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).

Transcendent28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I'm sorry about the disruptive editing I did. I got amazingly angry after reading what I consider to be a very biased page. I have calmed down now and won't do that again. I'm only a very small time editor anyway, usually fixing the odd grammatical error here and there. No need for a perma-ban. Sorry again. Transcendent28 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This wasn't a one-time thing. Additionally, your disruptive editing was outright racist and I think it's better we leave you blocked rather than having to continue dealing with that sort of garbage. Yamla (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Oh, so you think because I think "White privilege" is a myth, that I'm racist? No. I have very good reasons for thinking that. I have no hatred for other races or ethnicity at all, only for extremely biased political pundits such as yourself. I am white and I am not at all privileged. If you think that is "racist", then you have a serious problem. My whole anger outburst was due to how extremely biased the "White privilege" page is. Just because someone may disagree with the entire premise of "White privilege" does not equal racism. Your thinking is absolutely illogical.Transcendent28 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you went out of your way to vandalise an article on white privilege and I think that act was racist. I cannot judge whether you yourself are racist, I only state that action was. You are free to request another admin review your block. I suggest you are unlikely to be unblocked without a wide-ranging topic ban, though. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not racist at all. I am against far-left politics. Whenever I read an article which is politically controversial, such as on topics of race or sex, I see them to be heavily swayed in the direction of a left wing viewpoint. I have tried to contribute politically in the past to other pages, but only got shouted down and deplatformed (blocked) by obvious political activists on this site. That sort of thing makes me angry. When I read the "White privilege" page, I didn't even bother to try and contribute to the discussion. I just vandalised it out of pure anger and the political bias on show. I realise my mistake now, and I shouldn't have acted in such a way. Basically I don't want to edit any more politically controversial pages...because my views are not mainstream and it's just not worth it for me. I didn't target the "White privilege" page for racist reasons...but for political reasons, if you can understand that. I believe in racial equality, equality of opportunity for all, but not equality of outcome. I believe that lack of equality in the west is due to money and wealth, NOT due to race and gender, as is often forced on us by the far-left. Once again, please see that I am not a racist at all, and consider lifting my block. I promise no more angry outbursts on pages like this, I'm finished with that side of wikipedia. Transcendent28 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not unblock you, but you are free to make an unblock request and another admin will review your block. I suggest specifying explicitly that you'll accept a topic ban, and listing the areas the topic ban would apply to. You aren't required to do this, it's just a suggestion. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you just accept my apology? It's not like I'm going to do it again, and just get instantly blocked again. I've already explained what I did and why I'm sorry. For you to keep me on block looks like a personal vendetta from you.Transcendent28 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)