User talk:PaUZz LYte

Hello, PaUZz LYte, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

March 2023

Your recent editing history at Codrus 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content is cited to a legitimate source. Stop edit warring. Take some time to ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN SOURCE: here. Sundayclose (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep it civil and behave now young one. Rest assured i read through it the first time i removed the Aristotle bit.

PaUZz LYte (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isnt a source. Even if it did say something about Aristotle having an alternative view on its Wiki (which it doesnt), thats still not a legitimate source and not enough (for Wikipedia's standards) to justify the claim. Other Wiki pages arent a source. Legitimate articles are gonna be your way to go. If you can link something other than a Wiki page to prove the claim then im all ears. PaUZz LYte (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the source I linked above? You are on the verge of losing your editing privileges. But if you don't restore the content before your next edit, you can be blocked from editing for violation of several Wikipedia policies. Sundayclose (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're fairly new here, so I'll give you until your next edit before reporting you for inappropriate removal of content and edit warring. But if you make another edit before restoring the content, you can be blocked for violating several Wikipedia policies. Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please report me now so i dont have to keep removing it, thanks. PaUZz LYte (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual source again, which is not a Wikipedia article: [1] Click the link and read it. This is your final chance. You can't say you haven't been given an opportunity to look at the source because it's cited in the article and linked twice on your talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mind copying and pasting the bit in there where it states Aristotles alternative view specifically? All I'm seeing is more and more confirmation of the legitimacy of the original claim that the term king was abolished in favor of Archon and that the first of which was polemarch etc. PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content before your removal is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which means there must be a new WP:CONSENSUS to change it. After you restore the content, then we can have a legitimate discussion on the article's talk page about authorship. But until then you are still in violation of Wikipedia policies and there can be no further discussion. You could be blocked from editing right now because of your edit warring. If editors revert their edit warring, sometimes administrators will overlook the edit warring. It's up to you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another kind soul reverted for you. Hereafter (if you want to maintain your editing privileges) I suggest that you tread lightly instead of making knee-jerk reverts (as you also did at Martin Luther King Jr.) and take a few minutes to actually read what has been pointed out to you. You have squandered much of the assumption of good faith afforded to new editors. Because of your problem edits, you now have a lot of eyes on your edits. I'm sincere about this despite your rancorous attitude: Slow down. Read policies. Think before you get into a dispute. Sundayclose (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You take Wikipedia too seriously. I can take exactly what you just said to me and apply it to you, because as I've proved, it's more than applicable. Hope you learned to actually look yourself first before trying to discredit someone's edit. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MrOllie

Don't post on User talk:MrOllie again or you will be blocked for being here to waste time. Also, please take Wikipedia a little more seriously and stop calling people "young one" at random. It's disrespectful. Bishonen | tålk 15:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

March 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 ~~~~}}. UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understamd that i was edit warring. Im sorry for edit warring. Ill never do it again. Can you please link me the proper procedure to take to remove the already disproved misinformation within one of your wiki pages beyond my evidence I already documented in my edit summaries? PaUZz LYte (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Instead of edit warring, you should establish consensus on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (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.

PaUZz LYte (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

The user Sundayclose swore at me and misbehaved so I was merely referencing his age with "young one", regardedless; my apologies. I was about to edit out the false claim supposedly made by Aristotle with this as the reasoning: "Restored proven revision by me. Quoted from the source being used: "1 It is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students". I would also love to add that there still has yet to be any quotation put forth from the citated source as evidence to the claim originally made by the original poster. From what I've read, it only actually serves as further proof that the original story holds up and there's no mention of alt(alternative)." I would also like to add I made this very clear many replies ago, as well as in my original edits reasoning summary, to the users Sundayclose and Mrollie at an attempt to consensus but both chose to ignore it and neither including the original poster of this claim have put forth where exactly it states within their source of such a claim even being made. If this isn't enough to justify an unlock then my faith in Wikipedia will have been shattered, good day to you. PaUZz LYte (talk)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:08, 29 March 2023 (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.

You're having trouble because you're including the nowiki things. Leave that out and your request will work right. However, I'll point out that being sure you're right is not a useful defense against an edit warring block; if we thought you didn't think you were right, then we'd just block you as a vandal. You were distinctly edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:30, 29 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

"The block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" because my original edit was justified. Sundayclose then continued to repeatedly add it back in without providing sufficient evidence to justify doing so because: the edit made by the original poster months ago in regards to Aristotles claim provided no links and no quotation thus no evidence to justify its claim. It also states on the first page of the evidence provided later by user Sundayclose that and I quote: "1 It is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students". PaUZz LYte (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:EW. Nothing in your unblock requests are relevant to WP:EW. It doesn't matter if you think your edit was correct. Yamla (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (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.

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Codrus 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Codrus) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any more like the last series of edits, and I will change it to a siteblock, with talkpage access removed. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the block summary and what I posted at ANI? Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What ANI PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please PaUZz LYte (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help PaUZz LYte (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why am I blocked? PaUZz LYte (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

why am I blocked PaUZz LYte (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2023 (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.

PaUZz LYte (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-documented fact that volunteers do not react well to someone who is clearly trying to see how much of the time they have dedicated to volunteering he or she can waste. You are really pushing your luck at this point. General Ization ^Talk 23:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]