User talk:Elspru

License tagging for File:Grow lights-100w-3400lm-400mmx212mmx62mm.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Grow lights-100w-3400lm-400mmx212mmx62mm.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) P==Racist Editors removing Russian References!!== Roxy the Dog removed references to Russian articles because of their own personal biases against Russians! That is racism and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Elspru (talk)[reply]

Don’t call me a racist, or I will seek to have you banned from editing 5his project. Consider this your ONLY WARNING. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I talked to some people and they said perhaps you're not racist, you just needed to have links to more easily verify the articles. So I added the links. Hope this satisfies you. Elspru (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now please stop edit warring your nonsense into the project. Thanks. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that is engaged in an Edit War man, These are scientific articles by Russian Scientists, published in respected journals. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Wikipedia is about Science. and this is science so just let it go Elspru (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at Pyramid power shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Doug Weller, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. 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 the 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.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning your personal attacks[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

Misconduct such as this crosses a line about what a Wikipedia editor may say about another. It's too serious of an accusation, so you have been blocked from editing indefinitely. Please see this template to make an unblock request, with these directions in mind. Thank you. El_C 20:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this similar accusation. though it is phrased in a more convoluted way. I hope you realize how serious it is to say something like that. Not just on Wikipedia. Anywhere. El_C 21:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Besides pushing pseudoscience,[1] and edit warring, [2] he continually accuses other editors of racism[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Elspru, any unblock request should show an awareness of what you did wrong and a convinving commitment to not do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well I call it like it is. Just cause Russian people are different than you doesn't mean their science is invalid! Elspru (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Forgiveness and compassion for all beings is the first step to entering the new paradise timeline. Are you religiously materialists, or are you a science based organization? Removing citations from reputable Russian scientific peer-reviewed journals doesn't sound like what a science-based organization would do. Elspru (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the reason for your block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2019 (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.