User talk:AlbaDeTamble

Welcome!

Hello, AlbaDeTamble, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! LuckyLouie (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Ian Stevenson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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. 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie, you and GoblinFace are the ones who keep undoing my edits. You are engaged in the edit war as much as I am. --AlbaDeTamble (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ian Stevenson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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. 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.
Properly sourced content should not be removed against consensus. Doing so repeatedly is EW. Discuss on talk until consensus is reached before repeating a reversion of other's work. MrBill3 (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2014 (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:AlbaDeTamble reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made some edits and explained them. They were immmediately undone. I was asked to go to the talk page to discuss, which I did. Instead of discussion of my reasons for the edit I got warnings and then a campaign to repeatedly undo all of my edits to the page. It is the people who keep undoing my edits who started the war and who won't discuss the reasons. Then they report me. What am I supposed to do? They are the ones who are abusing the process as well as gaming the content of the article. I would like someone to objectively evaluate the situation please. AlbaDeTamble (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were unambiguously edit warring, and you were unambiguously making personal attacks against other volunteers here. You were sufficiently warned that your behavior was problematic, and you continued. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:21, 6 November 2014 (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.

Ah...due process. Blocked without anyone actually looking carefully at what is going on. First I am blocked by repeated undos of my edits, then the lovely skeptics complain (I can't call them tr***s). And does anyone see an effort on their part to address my concerns? Not so far. Just condescending lectures about policy. Oh, and blocking prevents me from discussing anything except here, so that's helpful.--AlbaDeTamble (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been clearly pointed to the core policy WP:NPOV, see section Fringe theories and pseudoscience. It was explained to you that the content you were editing falls under that section. In addition the very beginning of that policy explains WP represents information from reliable sources. See the section on Due and undue weight. See the core policy No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for an explanation of how secondary sources are highly preferable to primary sources. See the core policy Verifiability § Exceptional claims require exceptional sources for an explanation that should enlighten you regarding the kind of sourcing needed for exceptional claims like those made by the subject. See also the guideline Fringe theories. This was explained to you politely on talk, yet you decided to call other editors trolls. See the policy Civility for an explanation about conduct towards other editors. WP functions on the basis of policy supported by sources. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with how WP operates and hopefully you can resume editing in a constructive collaborative manner. Perhaps you were not aware that your initial edits constituted reverting others' work when you removed content others' had put in the article, perhaps you were also unaware that once you have reverted it is good practice to reach consensus on talk before repeating your edits. I trust you are now aware. The essay Reverting provides guidance and the warnings and block notice provide links to the appropriate policies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your joining wikipedia to your block was just like watching a slow motion train wreck, inexorable, unstoppable, inevitable. Actually, you could take a certain ironic pride in the fact that this was the fastest I've ever seen it done by a genuine new editor, but you have displayed all the classic tells of inexperience. It doesn't have to be that way, in fact, I've been here nearly seven years, and still maintain a clean record. Only by the skin of my teeth mind you, and normally it is the incivility policies that trip me up and get me warned. Those policies really suck, but it is kinda difficult to get them changed, so WP:DICKS like you and me have to work within them. Before you call a group of us trolls again, make sure you are on firmer ground, OK?

What should you do now? Well, the bunch of editors you have rubbed up the wrong way are actually rather a good bunch, always open to sensible discussion, and willing to nudge a newbie in the right direction. You can see this by the way they have made some suggestions above designed to try to help you see what went wrong. MrBill in particular has spent some time composing the comment above, which is full of genuine helpful suggestions which will help you if you take the time to read them. As the most trollish of all of us taking an interest, I have a feeling which way you will go. I'd like to see you prove me wrong though. Regards Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I understand. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/wikipedia-getting-worse-it-gets-better --AlbaDeTamble (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]