Hello, Pgbrux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Atacama skeleton seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. stating as fact that it's humanoid is against at least
WP:UNDUE.
Doug Weller (
talk) 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --
Ronz (
talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
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, you may be
blocked from editing. --
Ronz (
talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I see you've continued. [1] Please stop. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
-- Ronz ( talk) 23:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I notice that you're editing parallels that of
Schladd (
talk ·
contribs) and
Stickleback987 (
talk ·
contribs). See
WP:SOCK in case it might apply. --
Ronz (
talk) 23:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If you remove the word 'human' from the Atacama skeleton article again without prior consensus, I am going to report the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 00:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Atacama skeleton 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. Doug Weller ( talk) 05:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing. --
Ronz (
talk) 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Atacama skeleton. You've had numerous warnings.
Doug Weller
talk 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Atacama skeleton 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 are 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. Doug Weller talk 21:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Kuru
(talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Pgbrux ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My apologies. I am a novice editor unaware of the policies. However, my latest edit did include an RS for the information I am providing, which was the reason for reverting the previous edits (not having an RS). Yet these edits were still reverted despite the provided source. I apologize for my disruption, but I don't see any reason to revert sourced information that is crucial to the truthfulness of this page.
Decline reason:
Being right would not be an excuse for edit-warring. You should also use this break to familiarize yourself with what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and what doesn't. Huon ( talk) 00:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
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.