User talk:Scientus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

archive 1 archive 2

Libya[edit]

Please stop edit-warring. Three different editors have undone your POV-pushing edits. It's time to consider why.

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:Identifying reliable sources, because you seem ignorant of those guidelines. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the BBC, RT, and someone who "officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner's Inquest." (with video evidence) a reliable source?Scientus (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead of an article is supposed to summarize it, not contradict it. Citing the BBC's 1969 coverage as your basis for changing "military coup" to "bloodless coup" is probably inappropriate when there are hundreds of history books on the subject. (WP:V: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.")
RT is sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected at WP:RS/N. I have a feeling the innuendo-heavy article you used as a source wouldn't pass muster there, but I may be wrong.
Some of your other sources included a 90-minute YouTube documentary and an article from an open wiki. Almost certainly not reliable sources. See WP:USERGENERATED. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Template:Intellectual property, you may be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Islam and other religions 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. NeilN talk to me 01:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

English alphabet[edit]

Why are you adding blogspam to this article? --NeilN talk to me 19:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not blogspam. He uses blogger because it makes publishing easy, not becuase the content is crap. If you actually look at it you realize he has made a complete English orthography, and has published numerous books in this orthography. The other projects that came before such as Joseph Smith's script are all dead.Scientus (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
See primary source. And since when do we add external links in the body of an article? --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Externals links sometimes work. Yes, they are generally best avoided, but I've seen plenty of places where they are appropriate. I think this is one of them. And unspell is not a primary source in its criticism of English, if I used it for that (which I will not because that is a dead end). Scientus (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You are serving it up as a notable alternative script. It is a primary source for its notability. --NeilN talk to me 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
None of the other scripts are being actively developed. Scientus (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Which affects nothing with respect to notability. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm with User:NeilN on this one. There's no basis that this self-published unspell is notable. You've got the creator's own blog, and a paper he could only publish by putting it on dropbox, and another reference to it from a self-described fan. And you're using an embedded EL as a substitute for showing sufficient notability for it. Please stop that.
As an aside, you're well beyond WP:3RR on this. Stop edit warring and instead get a consensus on the talk page if you really believe its inclusion is merited. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel[edit]

What are you thinking?!? There is absolutely no support on the Talk page for your suggestions with respect to Israel, but you think it's a good idea to go ahead and start making them anyway?

If you continue this sort of disruptive editing, you will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antisemitism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israel. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel does not have "universal suffrage", but as was discussed on the talk page removing it was not wanted. There was no argument that the citizens of the West Bank and the Gaza are not represented, among others. Because the definition of this term is so at odds with the popular definition the term must be clarified.Scientus (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Scientus. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It is likely you will be blocked per the ANI complaint for long-term edit warring unless you express agreement to follow consensus in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scientus, you are nice editor, Wikipedia needs you, you should agree on that you will not do edit waring and you will use talk page, you can also use Dispute resolution Noticeboard, if you are true and your edits are sourced and relevant then community will surely accept your edits. You are really not person who deserves block, so you should agree on terms and conditions of Wikipedia. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the consensus demonstrated at AN/I, you have been blocked from editing for one month. Please take seriously the comments and concerns that were voiced there, because if you continue the same conduct when you return you can expect additional and lengthier blocks to be imposed. postdlf (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation[edit]

I undid your edit as the lede of this article has been discussed at length on talk:Female genital mutilation. Please discuss your proposed change there before restoring. Do add sources supporting your proposed changes as well. Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 05:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is the source. this paper mentioned here doesn't cover that. I do see that the history of the term is different. Scientus (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jagged[edit]

Please see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#How it started. I moved your comment to there because that is the place for discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)