User talk:Bolandista

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense! I asked for and failed to get any discussion. Your consensus seems to be "We are right, go away". # Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Edit warring is your tactic. I made the change after no correspondence was forth-coming. You took the decision to remove my entry after you failed to try to achieve consensus in the discussion I was pleased to partake in. So you failed in every way to engage in reasoned argument. I will go for protection as you suggest. Bolandista (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested text has no support from any other editors. It is clearly against consensus, and should not be included in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point out where I am in error - let us start a discussion based on the page I posted. Bolandista (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the person seeking to add material to the article, it is your responsibility to convince other editors that it should be included. You have not done so - in fact, all other editors have opposed your suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So rather than discuss the proposed changes, you believe by saying no one agrees, that's consensus through discussion. Come off it. Just say it, you are not interested in justifiable content only smearing Sitchin. That is the only honest position you have. I, however, can verify all my material by reference to the original text - can you? Bolandista (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular interest in the content - I took action based on your behaviour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have an interest in the content, otherwise you would not have changed my truthful content back to the slander that was there before. However, you may be able to help me, if you would, please. What, in this context, is an R(equest)F(or)C(hange)? Why is it used? How are they decided? Bolandista (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read up on how Wikipedia works, using the links in the Welcome message above. An RFC is a request for comment, by others not involved in a content dispute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username DVdm. I noticed you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide verification for your edit. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! Wikipedia articles are written by people like you and me, and we care a lot about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please help us make it better. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure as an editor with so much time in here on Wikipedia you will understand the technical aspects of your message but I'm afraid you have lost me. What do you mean by a verification for my edit? What have you removed? Bolandista (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit (and this, this, this, this, this, this and this) you repeatedly added unsourced content and you removed references to existing sources — see our policy about wp:references, wp:reliable sources and wp:verifiability. I removed the unsourced content and restored the removed sources with this edit, and gave the warning on your talk page here above. Please read the articles about our policies regarding these matters. Cheers and happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first(Read that, did what it suggests).

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. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

In human, political, state, or international relations discussion is always better than war. I tried to initiate discussion about the entry on Sitchin more than once. I was ignored, abused and bullied. Do you expect any reasonable person who KNOWS that the opposition(for that is what they are) are using lies and dirty tactics to damage a persons character, to just walk away after being told to "go edit something else", to do just that. I am sure you would feel as I do - these tactics are not to be used anywhere, especially in an organisation like this. I would like to submit a formal complaint against the trio responsible for disreputable conduct unbecoming in Wikipedia to support a controversial entry. However, having expressed my exasperation for the way I have been treated, I will not engage in war tactics in future. I will learn the correct way to proceed and act accordingly. Bolandista (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Let me introduce a few key concepts: WP:CONSENSUS(Even if that consensus is based on "truth", lies and ignorance of the facts), reliable sources(such as 100 year old books - M Jastro, 1911), and WP:TRUTH. (The word "truth" is used here as though it were a finite standard - it is not!! No one, except people of faith, can claim to know the "truth" about anything. The "truth" comes only by adopting a faith position. Miss-understanding the concept of "truth" leads to predjudice against everything that cannot be shoe-horned into an individual or a groups concept of that word on any issue. Anything proposed by anyone, be they part of a commercial institution such as university or working on their own with no other resources than their own possessions, will, at the end of a project produce a commentary detailing the theory, the tests applied to that theory and the results of those tests. If everything fits together it can be accepted as a position which may be challenged by people within the same sphere of interest. It matters not how many positive results have been obtained in support of the theory we still have at most a THEORY and never the "Truth". It matters not that people of faith can say, "We have, or know the Truth, you only have a theory." Their Truth is not verifiable so it is of no value except to them. Tested theories which stand up to many rigourous tests become strong theories, but nevertheless, still theories. Following on from this, strong theories are used to build new theories, which again must be testable, and so on. Let me mention one other aspect of a theory. The originator may not have any possibility of testing a presented theory. The important thing is that it is plain to see how a theory can be tested. Then the theory can stand alongside other theories until tested and found wanting. Please remember, what one may call "truth" may be simple predjudice. One can only know truth if one is speaking from a faith position. You then BELIEVE there is a distinction between what you know to be true, i.e., BELIEVE, and everything else which seemingly stands opposed to what you know as the truth i.e., BELIEVE is the truth. Further, one may BELIEVE this predjudiced position gives one the right to defame all other theories or commentaries on theories and authors of such theories, which are outside those one accepts as true, via what one has come to BELIEVE. Know this and beware that one does not judge from a faith position. By the way, did I mention that my degree included Philosophy of Inquiry? Karl Popper is my hero, who is yours?) We do not follow the concept that silence=consensusWhy not? - after all, there's no WP:TIMELIMIT, (Why not?) and every editor is a volunteer. Every edit must obtain consensus,(see above) and every edit must be supported by valid sources(see above). Once you show that you have learned the proper way forward, you might be unblocked - not the other way around.(Why not? I have after all followed the suggestions in "Guide to appealing blocks(sic)") Start back with WP:5P; move onto WP:BRD. Then try WP:DR. (Thank you for these three pointers. I have read the first two and can see where this all started to go wrong. My set of words, which I uploaded after attempting a discussion and getting only abuse was reverted simply because I was removing bias and trying to achieve an NPOV. Reversion for that reason, ie not liking the new content, I find is frowned upon. No more discussion by the reverter, just more abuse.) After you have read and understood those, re-read the guide to appealing blocks and retry. You have a lot to read over the next 24hrs(Why 24hrs?). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 22 October 2011 (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.