User talk:Csi.southpark

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.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

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) 21:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Your recent editing history at List of the oldest buildings in the world shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V non-compliance

In this edit you restored unsourced content and content from a blog that does not comply with WP:SPS, as I said in my edit summary. That is a policy violation. It is also aggressive editing warring. Your edit summary "that is ridiculous and you know it. It's a good source and the information added is vital to the article" is incorrect and belligerent. Familiarize yourself with what is expected of people when they edit in this topic area (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_reminded). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland If you think that you can find a better source then by all means add it. That fact is the information is true and the article distorts facts without it and I'm pretty sure that threatening someone is more "belligerent."

Read WP:BURDEN and comply with policy. If you do not comply with policy in the topic area, you will not be able to edit in the topic area. It is a privilege that can be taken away. Behavior that ensures that you retain that privilege is entirely in your hands, not mine. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland I found and added another source. Csi.southpark (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources are clearly blogs, and I have also reverted your edit. I have also reverted your unsourced assertion; you may not add a contentious claim with a "citation needed" tag. If you have no source for this edit, then you simply cannot add it, however self-evident the statement may seem to you. The fact that others reject this establishes that this is a contested claim, which needs a source. RolandR (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these better RolandR, Sean.hoyland?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=focLrox-frUC&pg=PA434&dq=seal+of+solomon+in+islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CARkUr38BqeqyAHDg4CICg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=seal%20of%20solomon%20in%20islam&f=false http://books.google.ca/books?id=KoiD_yafPT8C&pg=PA138&dq=seal+of+solomon+in+islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CARkUr38BqeqyAHDg4CICg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=seal%20of%20solomon%20in%20islam&f=false And here is a picture; not as a source just for fun: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3422089 I also feel the need to clarify your other statement the citation needed tag was for someone else's claim under the photo that the Israeli flag is received with mixed feelings. Csi.southpark (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Csi.southpark reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: ). Thank you. AsceticRosé 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AsceticRose I removed something that I wrote. I did this because I realized the having the article say the Jewish people and Samaritans descend from Canaanites is, while true, going to cause problems so I simply removed it. And yes in the process I also removed what someone else added to my edit. But had I left my original comment in place with the other users edit. It would have caused more problems. So I'm sorry that I violated the 24 hour rule, but what would you have had me do. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating WP:1RR at Jerusalem,

you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.