User talk:SamfromAus123

October 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Book of Enoch have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Book of Enoch was changed by SamfromAus123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873747 on 2024-10-06T04:13:12+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Book of Enoch, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Book of Enoch 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Saying "this is in book x of the bible" is not citing a source. Please see WP:reliable sources and WP:Citing sources for how to contribute productively to the encyclopedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations for unsourced claims according to WP:reliable sources and WP:Citing. Please understand them for how to contribute productively to the encyclopedia SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2024 (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:SamfromAus123 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ). Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2024 (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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2024 (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.

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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i added sources for unsourced claims. SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2024 (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.

unblock

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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

if you read the book of enoch change log you will see there was multiple unsourced claims on the page which i added references too. the majority of the animal apocalypse section is unsourced but i dont see you deleting all of that SamfromAus123 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for WP:RGW but don't address this at all. But even looking at your claim, I see multiple edits to Book of Enoch with no WP:CITEs at all. See for example, this and this and this. Yamla (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2024 (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.

Apparently you don't see there are no sources for any of the claims so I added a source. The claims being made are based on 1 Enoch- a book of the bible therefore the source for the claims is.... that's right... the bible. If you think it is wrong delete the entire page or at least the section with no sources.

You seem to be engaging in original research, which is not permitted here. See WP:NOR. --Yamla (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i want to add the research to the talk page so at least others can see it and then one of the people on here who edit all the time can see it is correct and add it if they want SamfromAus123 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not addressing the reasons for your block. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:17, 7 October 2024 (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.

SamfromAus123 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

looks like the original reason was it was original research which no one told me . now i know so i want to post it on the talk page not the main page SamfromAus123 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am not going to unblock you to post original research on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2024 (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.

SamfromAus123 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting it. You shouldn't be posting original research anywhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on talk page it is allowed. SamfromAus123 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're allowed to make your case for specific edits on talkpages (arguing that they aren't actually OR), but if you know what you are saying is OR, you generally should not be posting it to talkpages, since it won't be useful to other editors. There are a few very limited exceptions, which your edits would not fall under. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well you don't know what i will post on the talk page. talk pages are for discussion of content that can or can not be posted within the context of wiki rules. SamfromAus123 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. You shouldn't be posting your original research anywhere on Wikipedia and I doubt another admin will unblock you if you don't understand this. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is allowed to post original research on a talk page. that is not bannable offence. SamfromAus123 (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so i can contribute to wiki again with sources no OR SamfromAus123 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no indication whatsoever that you understand why you were blocked. Perhaps you could give us an example of the kind of OR-free edit you might make? asilvering (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (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.

SamfromAus123 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

SamfromAus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so i can edit wiki with citations SamfromAus123 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:49, 30 October 2024 (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.

If youlook at my history you will see I made sourced edits to a mannose page about genetic diseases years ago. SamfromAus123 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is, what, the seventh unblock request? To the next reviewing admin, I very strongly suggest revoking talk page access. This user clearly hasn't the slightest clue about proper sourcing. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the next reviewing admin I suggest unblocking me, and blocking Yamla from my talk page for unconstructive comments. I do have a proper clue on sourcing as evidence from my previous edits. You don't own wikipedia. Other people are allowed to edit too. SamfromAus123 (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is you, and other people were triggered by my mention of Jesus on the talk page due to an anti Jesus bias you have. Get over it. Wiki is for everyone. SamfromAus123 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]