Jump to content

User talk:Quarkgluonsoup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 16 March 2012 (note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Exodus

Please stop removing any mention of archaeology from the lead. You haven't justified not having archaeology in the lead and removing it is a violation of our NPOV policy - unless you really are suggesting that the view that there is no archaeological evidence isn't a significant view. So far as I can tell, no one but you is suggesting that the lead doesn't mention archaeology or trying to edit it to remove archaeology from the lead. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Quark--at this point editing the lede won't do anything. You'll just get reverted, and even if you don't your version will just be overwritten with the version that attains consensus on talk. The discussion on talk is going to take some more time: try to be patient. – Lionel (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for edit-warring.

Your recent editing history 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. 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've started a discussion there about your edits. On another issue, I've reverted you at American Civil War - don't take this personally, but your edits made a hash of the references with a long column of red warning notices. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • And since you not only removed a huge amount of cited information, screwed up the article, and then performed the same edit again, I have reverted it and am formally warning you against doing it again. You must gain consensus before making controversial or contentious edits, especially ones that remove cited material. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quark: you make reasoned arguments and I believe that over time you will be able to persuade editors in the merit of your arguments. But you must start with the small issues first, the things that the majority can agree upon, and then propose more ambitious changes. You have to realize that Wikipedia moves at its own pace. However what does appear to be moving quickly is a growing consensus to kick you off WP permamently. That would be a shame. – Lionel (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding 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. Guerillero | My Talk 17:30, 14 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see the comment by YT95 below. I have been in a long discussion on the talk page for about a month, but the other editors are simply reverting everything. The edit that resulted in this block was my restoration of an edit by another user, IZAK. I never violated 3rr, but rather was being bold as wikipedia policy says we are to be. Dougweller seems to have something against me. He is certainly moitoring my edits, since he reverted an entire series of (what he admits were good faith) edits to American Civil War and just so happened to appear on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#Seven_Point_Counter_Proposal shortly after I made a couple comments. If you look at his history, his pattern is to revert good faith edits by a wide range of people in a wide range of topics. It is also excessive to threaten an indefinite block for someone who has never been blocked and whose only block resulted from two edits that reverted other reversions.

What this block was for, therefore, were two edits that restored a reverted good faith edit. That is too harsh (as YT95 says below)Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At the very least you need to show willingness to accept that you were edit-warring, which you blatantly were over a period of a week. All I see below is denial. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2012 (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.

: Perhaps there is a history here I don't know about but this seems extremely harsh based on what I have read on the talk page. The article does seem a little bit one sided in it's presention. I'm certainly not bible literalist, my interest is Ancient Egypt, and the article does need some expansion to include the diversity of scholarly opinion that deals with any supposed arrival and sojourn prior to the claimed Exodus etc. The Exodus is not a binary Yes/no issue in any of the scholarly works I have read. Yt95 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this didn't save when I clicked save and I'd moved on. I did mention it elsewhere where you were editing. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convenient. I couldn't contest the complaint since I had no warning. All in good faith though right?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what can I say? Yes it was in good faith, but I don't expect you to grant me good faith, you haven't so far. I apologise, it wasn't deliberate, but you can and have appealed. Quark, you're a problem editor. I had a clear reason to revert you at American Civil War, you'd made a mess of the article. I wasn't taking a stand on the quality of the content because I was trying to show good faith. But others thought that your removal of so much information on slavery was not a good idea. I have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion on my watchlist and Izaak's proposal got my attention. And you say my editing pattern "is to revert good faith edits by a wide range of people in a wide range of topics"? My, I hope you have a lot of diffs for that that you have examined to determine whether they were good reverts. And your restoration of Izak's stripping the edit of any mention of archaeology was simply a repeat of your earlier actions. I wasn't the first to revert his edit either, another editor did it the first time and you restored it twice. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a problem editor how? I have received two complaints both from you. The first was over about 5 revisions I did over a week, while this was over two revisions. It is you who simply revert without engaging in constructive dialog.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look at the history of The Exodus, and the claim that you were only restoring IZAK's edit looks a little disingenuous, seeing as you had been edit-warring to remove the mention of archaeology from the lead for days prior to that - this was a week ago. As Lionel said, right at the top of this Talk page, "...at this point editing the lede won't do anything. You'll just get reverted, and even if you don't your version will just be overwritten with the version that attains consensus on talk. The discussion on talk is going to take some more time: try to be patient." You need to listen to that advice, agree to stop edit-warring, and agree to wait for the Talk page consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was I not restoring IZAK's edits? How is it disingenuous to restore the deleted edits of another editor? Because I made some other edits earlier?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Your contributed article, The Exodus/Draft

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, The Exodus/Draft. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - The Exodus. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at The Exodus - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quarkgluonsoup&oldid=482248019"