User talk:7Lybia7

Welcome!

Hello, 7Lybia7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Hamites did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you interested in these articles

Don't forget that sources must discuss the subject - see WP:NOR. We shouldn't use Eupedia as a source, see this discussion.[1] Sometimes you might want to use an article's talk page if you aren't sure about something or you were reverted and want to discuss it. I'll also give you an illustrated message about edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 09:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hamites 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 21:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, as you did at Canaan (son of Ham), you may be blocked from editing. Legendary people have no genome. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Canaan and Canaan (son of Ham). And WP:Disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 06:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this account for one week following this vindictive warning. During an ANI discussion which you were a participant of, and apropos of nothing, you left another user you were in a content dispute with a vandalism warning, after being told to stop doing that. It's quite clear you have no intention of working collaboratively with others, and if this sort of juvenile and immature response to being asked to slow down and discuss your editing is what we can expect from you, I'm not sure we want that around anymore. If you think that you can convince other administrators to end your block before it expires in one week, use the unblock template as described below. I suggest you indicate how you intend to change your behavior going forward, as it has been a big problem up until now, and even if you wait this block out and let it expire in 1 week, I assure you, if you return to the same behavior, you will be blocked again. --Jayron 32 13:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jayron 32 13:21, 24 April 2020 (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).

7Lybia7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added a genetic section to Canaan and Canaan (son of Ham), Rsk6400 vandalized the article Canaan, I kept reverting his edits (without violating the 3 R rule) until I got blocked from editing by Doug Weller who started a new discussion on ANI. He falsely complained that I did not use any sources, inappropriate sources and bad sources. I answered to each of his points, then warned Rsk6400 for vandalism. Jayron3 blocked me because "that's a bit over the line".

It seems Doug Weller and his buddies are the only ones allowed to warn others.

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. – bradv🍁 14:34, 24 April 2020 (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.

Please show where I blocked you. Note that I never accused you of using bad sources and tried my best to explain that. You used good sources inappropriately/badly. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also still hard to understand how User:HansFüller showed up to revert me 8 minutes after I reverted you. You haven't answered my question about your relationship to that account. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. – bradv🍁 14:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]