User talk:SGT-Craig

May 2018 3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Common Era shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to tell your crew to stop deleting references and it makes it very hard when they are using multiple accounts to avoid the 3 post rule. SGT-Craig (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to present evidence of sockpuppetry instead of making accusations about people with no evidence.

If you didn't mean to slander other users, but thought that it's three reverts per side: no, that's not it, it's three reverts per user (not account). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If i present factual evidence with references and I'm dealing w/ users with multi accounts and other users w/ an agenda to push its rather difficult to keep the article non-biased. O well. SGT-Craig (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I actually said and respond to that. You seem to have trouble doing that. I said you need to present evidence that "they are using multiple accounts." Otherwise, you are making a personal attack against the other editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my entry WITH REFERENCES was deleted yet again by people w/ an agenda. I've reached out to them to try to understand why they think that CE / BCE is somehow not derived from dates revolving around Jesus. I am asking for references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. We will see if they will provide some or will they keep playing games. SGT-Craig (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2018 (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:SGT-Craig reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 05:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium Americas moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lithium Americas, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Common Era. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of your edit war at Common Era

Per this update of the edit warring complaint (based on your new reverts since the 24-hour block expired) it is likely you will be blocked again, and for a longer time. There may still be time for you to respond. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:Bold, revert, discuss. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now you need to discuss the matter on the talk page and achieve consensus before restoring the material. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SGT-Craig, the following points apply to your behavior:

From WP:Tendentious editing:

Repeating an edit that got you blocked ([1] [2])
Repeatedly accusing other of malice (continual accusations of agendas, failing to withdraw, modify, or even address your slanderous accusations of sockpuppetry and trolling)
Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject (See next point)
Never accepting independent input. In both both Common Era and Podophyllum you fought over a single point without bothering to figure out how to do it the right way, as if believing that one is correct (whether or not they are) trumps actually doing things the right way. You characterized someone asking you to not plagiarize (i.e. steal text, which regarded as a sign of intellectual laziness and dishonesty) as "trolling" by "duffus mcgoos (...) hell bent on keeping fictitious info on the board".
Seeking to "right great wrongs". A casual glance of your behavior at Common Era and Podophyllum is sufficient evidence.

All this fits the following points from WP:NOTHERE:

"General pattern of disruptive behavior"
"Treating editing as a battleground"
"Little or no interest in working collaboratively"

For these reasons, your next block will probably be indefinite. Had I blocked you, it would have been indefinite. You need to realize that you (just you, not other people) are the problem here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. All your various puppets (meat, sock) can't defend their position and are guilty of:

Repeating an edit (using meat of sock accounts to delete referenced facts) Repeatedly accusing other of malice Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject Never accepting independent input. (Nope,, your minions never did accept facts did they?.. nope) Seeking to "right great wrongs". (The problem is the system is based or derived from Jesus, no way around it. Having various accounts makes it rather easy to war edit rather than address this fact) Threating users.