User talk:Scias76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Scias76, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.

There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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) 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks[edit]

This edit of yours is a personal attack, which isn't allowed here. You should retract it. Please comment only on content and sources, do not comment on other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring[edit]

You are editwarring at Hummus [1]. If you carry on edit warring, you will be blocked from editing. Please use the talk page and try to gather consensus for your edits there. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 72 hours owing to edit warring at Hummus and this personal attack, which is also a threat to carry on edit warring.

If you agree to retract the personal attack (which, unlike what you told me on my talk page, you have not done, although this might have been a language problem), not make any edits to Hummus for 72 hours and lastly, refrain from edit warring in the future, I will unblock you. You might also want to have a look at WP:Consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 72 hours, for edit warring, threat to edit war, personal attacks at Hummus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2010 (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).

Scias76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I thought I edited the text so that it wont be a personal attack, please let me know what in it still constitutes as a personal attack, and I shall edit it as well. Regarding my insistence to combat unfair bias, especially when it is promoted by unreasonable and ignorant users who are both stubborn and have a lot of time on their hand, that, I'm afraid, will not change. I will, however, learn the rules better, and unlike others, I shall try not exploit them and use them as pretext to shamelessly spread my ideology. I, unlike some, believe in fairness and accuracy

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that attack others are invariably declined. See WP:NOTTHEM  Sandstein  17:17, 12 May 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.

You will need to agree to the following:

  • Retract the personal attack (the easiest way to do this would be to delete the comment altogether). Comments about other editors aren't allowed, see WP:NPA if you don't understand the policy.
  • Agree not to edit the article Hummus for 72 hours, which will allow time for input from more editors, without worries that you will carry on edit warring, as you have threatened to do.
  • Agree not to edit war again.

If you agree to these three things, I will unblock you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I most certainly do not agree to removing my comment altogether, yet I would gladly edit any personal attack that I may have not noticed.
2. I agree.
3. As long as Tiamut agrees not to get into an edit war as well, and to not speak on behalf of a non-existing authority and then - upon her sole decision backed by you (with all due respect, you're not an expert here), I certainly don't see any reason to get into an editing war. In any case, I shall refrain from doing it in such a way.

(Scias76 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This is not what I asked you to agree to, so I will not unblock you (I've already referred you to the policy pages having to do with edit warring, personal attacks and consensus). You have posted an unblock request, so another admin will likely be along to review it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, my bad - I still forget to sign post, wish it was done automatically... maybe it's a cultural thing or some other thing, but it seems as if we don't quite understand each other. And perhaps I don't understand what it is you want from me, hope you can clarify it better. You suggested I delete my comment altogether, and declined though I offered to delete whatever may still constitute as personal attack once you've clarified what you are referring to. I agreed not to edit the article in the next 72 hours. I may have misunderstood your intention in clause 3.


(Scias76 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Everyone has to sign their posts, it's not at all a hard habit to get into, typing four tildes at the end of a post is very easy. Put very simply, signing is not automated because editors do such things as edit their own comments and other tasks which are not signed.
I blocked you owing to three worries, so each thing I asked you to agree to deals with each of those worries.
Most of this edit by you is a personal attack, ending with what, at its root, is a threat to carry on edit warring, so the most helpful thing to do is to delete the post altogether. I will do this for you if you ask me to, maybe that's the easiest thing to do.
Yes, I see you have agreed to stay away from Hummus for 72 hours.
Your edit warring only has to do with you, not another editor. Whatever another editor may be doing, you cannot edit war with that editor. Edit warring is very harmful to the project. It is even more harmful in this broad topic area. Since I'm only asking you to agree to abide by the policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, I will not (and should not) unblock you if you don't agree to abide by the policy everyone else must follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited someone else's post in the discussion board?? sorry, I didn't mean to. Of course I agree not to do that, I fully understand the severity of such a thing. (Scias76 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I did not say you edited another editor's post. I believe your English may not be strong enough to read and understand the policies here. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you need not put the four tildes in parenthesis. Signing the post with 4 tildes, like this, is enough: ~~~~ Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, my English is just fine, trust me, I've had to cope with much tougher texts at Uni. but I do think you assumed I'm a savvy Wikipedist. Well... I'm not, and I'm still trying to grasp the lingo and all the little clauses. I had no idea what an Edit Warring meant. Just checked it, and of course I'll avoid it, but I expect Tiamut to be disciplined as well, since she obviously took part in this "war". Anyway, thanks for the link and for the tiles advice. appreciate it!

Scias76 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Make it easy[edit]

As much as I hate to copy/paste between pages, here is what you said:

Now, read WP:NPA. Now, can you tell me the many parts of the above that violate WP:NPA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I edited it as soon as I saw your warning, as you can see in the discussion page:


Does this still constitute a personal attack? While I agree it's a little aggressive, I don't see any ad hominems or other violations. Again, I can correct it. Gwen, I think you were a little hasty to block me, and could have shown a tad more restrain. I also think that you still did not provide any valid argument on the matter at hand, and as Breein1007 noted, "you are not addressing the fact that the article you linked refuted your point, or you have simply failed to reread it". I urge you to address the matter, because although this may seem petty and in-important to you (unless you have an agenda), I think it's an important principle and I cannot accept your decision to back up Tiamut's arguments.

Though I respect your authority and revere your polite conduct, I gather that as a leading editor here, you are compelled to go into more depth when such a matter appears. I'm sure you've rightfully earned your status here, but at least in this instance you were impervious to my criticism and demonstrated very little desire to get to the bottom of things. To sum things up, I have no intention of letting go so easily, though I will learn to do so while better abiding the rules. Thank you. Scias76 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've edit warred and made personal attacks. I don't know if you don't understand this, or are only unwilling to acknowledge it. Either way, if you carry on with this behaviour after the block is up, the next block will be longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing I will file some kind of complaint against you eventually, because you constantly fail to address any substance and focus on the technicality. No offense, but this is a behavior that one would expect from an East-German clerk, or a computer algorithm, not from a scholar. I realize my faults, and will do my best to avoid them, but I don't need or expect you to unblock me. Scias76 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, if you agree to the three things I outlined above I will unblock you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already agreed and once again I am stating that I agree, but I don't mind being blocked for 72 hours because more concerned about you addressing Breein's and my arguments in the Anachronism topic. We provided detailed answers, and though none were refuted - they were overlooked and Tiamut had her way. Thank you

Scias76 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred and made personal attacks, which is why you are now blocked. Please keep in mind, if you carry on edit warring and making personal attacks once the block lifts, the next block may be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wow, it doesn't matter what I write - it seems as if you don't even read it, because you simply ignore the content and just copy-paste technical replies. I am asking seriously (not being sarcastic here), is "Gwen" a human administrator, or some kind of a sophisticated automatic response? Scias76 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a nice bit of welcome links at the very top of this page. While you're on holiday, I suggest you read them.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scias76&oldid=1077375237"