User talk:Sleeping water

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Celts, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Celts. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Celts, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you send me a message about my edits ? They are sourced, idem for the map, while two users do not want to continue the discussion. They prefer to revert my edits. I hope that they had received the same messages (catfish Jim and the soapdish, and Cuchullain).--Sleeping water (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 3 times, other user one or two times. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edits are sourced and justified, not their ones. Are edits necessarily vandalism ?--Sleeping water (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gabhala (talk · contribs) last summary. Search consensus, not edit wars. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want consensus, go to the talk page, and read the sources and the arguments. You have only personnal attacks or the same arguments again and again, and you turn round since a mont with your 3 or 4 friends.--Sleeping water (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tommorrow we're going to the mall, don't go with us? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I have said. You have only personal comments. And you have become Administrator !!

' --Sleeping water (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Celts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Celts. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Sleeping water reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive blocking

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked by I don't know who, because I made sourced edits (page Celts), whith exactly quotes of recognized authors. There is a long talk page where I have put academical sources. Some other users are unable to contest them (some have tried to search the smallest detail but have failed), but they don't want anyway to recognize them, and make always strawman arguments (see the talk page). I have been the subject of personal attacks ("Catfish Jim and the soapdish" have primarly accused me to have an "agenda", always using the 3rd person while talking about me, makes very rare interventions in the talk page or only for some personnal comments, a IP user had qualified my arguments as "gibberish", Gabhala have maid personnal attacks about my interventions on the French wiki...). The worst bad faith comes from Catfish who says on MY talk page that I put personnal adds, while the sources are on the talk page, and I have exactly quoted them in my edits. He just doesn't want to recognize these sources, just because their conclusions are against his misconceptions. By the way, it is easy to incite you to make more than 3 edits when you have 2 or 3 personns who revert your edits without explanation, and to be accused of war edition. Each edit should be explained, and the users who revert your edits without explanation should be blocked too. I don't know what you call consensus : I have never seen a poll; I think there will be never consensus between all the users of Wiki. My edits were sourced (map and paragraph), so, I think I have respected the rules of Wiki. Another thing : why in the message, it is about 24 hours, and the block is until 22 august ? Incoherent.

Decline reason:

If you have "2 or 3" people reverting your edits, that seems to be a clear indication that you do not have consensus and should cease reverting on the main article. You will need to conclude your discussions with the other editors before making controversial changes. If you are unclear on the edit warring policy, I cannot unblock you. The block placed on your account was extended when you logged out of your account and continued editing, leading to the time discrepancy. Kuru (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2010 (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 reviewed|1= "If you are unclear on the edit warring policy"

I don't understand what you mean.

For the rest, this is a viscious circle: who will judge the "controversial" feature of an edit ? Myself, I can consider the next edit as controversial, even the current page. So, I can block a "consensus". And who are the "other editors" ? The thousand of the users of wiki ? I thought that the rules of the wiki were that if you have academical sources, you can put them by quoting them. This is exactly what I did. Your definition of a "consensus" seems to be nothing else than a political game or the begining of the anarchy.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be clear on your definitions of academic sources. School projects and the home pages of amateur historians are not considered reliable. Or, for that matter, academic. Moreover, Cherry-picking sources to support a point of view that does not in any way represent current academic consensus is simply confirmation bias. Until you can accept this and present your arguments in palatable chunks with discourse, other editors are inevitably going to view your contributions as disruptive. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Personal attacks", by the way included statements like this:

But above all, "hum"...read some books, or at least a single one in your life before trying sarcasms. Only after this, you will be able to think you are intelligent, arrogant Portuguese. You are just a Celtic wannabe. Sleeping water (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping water, your complaint about 'consensus' is hard to overlook, since it is the basis of editing here. If you believe consensus is a 'political game' then you might be better off working on some other website. From a comparison of Celts with fr:Celtes, it seems that an editor with views very similar to yours has been sparring at the French Wikipedia. (That person made five reverts on the French article between July 30 and 31). Since many people have given you advice about proper Wikipedia behavior in both places, and you have not taken the advice, it seems unlikely you are going to become a good contributor on disputed articles. The French article on the Celts has been placed under indefinite full protection because of the edit war in which you were one of the main participants. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks at User talk:Catfish Jim and the soapdish

Your comment here represents a personal attack on Catfish jim. If you want to get other people cited for their bad behavior, and then go about abusing other editors, you shouldn't expect much sympathy. If you want to set a good example for others you should remove your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation

As that page was a page to discuss the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation, guidance on how to create a a request for comment on users, I've removed your post there and response - in case you haven't see the response, I'm adding both here: I'm not sure that it is the good procedure (I'm new). I have been blocked by the administrator Cúchullain, on the page "Celts". I don't constest the formal reasons of the block (I did not knew all the rules), but I contest the general behaviour of this administrator : I had posted academical sources and quoted exactly some authors in a paragraph. However, some users refused those changes simply arguing that they were personnal comments, while they were not (I invite you to read the talk page). However, all my edits have been reverted just because of the refuse from some users. So, my questions are :

are the articles of wiki a result of a consensus ? if yes, how many persons are supposed to be present to have a recognized consensus (are there rules for this number) ? if the edits are academical and sourced, why can't they be included ? Just because of the consensus ? So, the wiki would be just a political game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping water (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've numbered your comments for ease of reference.

yes there's no rule about numbers yes, in practice Wikipedia often is "just a political game"

Peter jackson (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure about 3 as I haven't read the context, but Peter jackson's responses to 1 and 2 are correct. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erfurt150 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]