User talk:Greumaich

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Greumaich! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greumaich, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Greumaich! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, English language, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to English language, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mathglot. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, English language, which was unfortunately undone by another editor. Wikipedia welcomes bold changes, but when another editor objects, rather than redoing your edit once again, as you did here, Wikipedia's policy on consensus calls for resolving any content disputes on the article's talk page. If you repeatedly change content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree, that is considered edit warring Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Thanks you. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English language

Hi, Greumaich, and welcome. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your latest changes to English language. Unfortunately, I had to undo them, because the lead section of an article is considered a summary of the body of the article, and should correspond to sourced material already in the body; except for the most basic definition in the first sentence, there generally should not be any unique information in the lead not already present in more detail in the body. Thus the sequence for editing generally calls for making additions to the body first, then bring the lead into line as an adequate summary. While there is no policy prohibiting a new editor from changing the lead, you'd be well-advised to stick to changes to the body while you are becoming familiar with Wikipedia. If you make changes to the lead of articles, please be aware that there may be additional scrutiny, and more frequent reverts. It's always a good idea to discuss any major additions or changes to the article on the Talk page, to see what established editors think of the idea, and this goes double for changes to the lead. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and will stick around. If you have any questions, feel free to {{ping}} me, or ask a question at the Tea house. You can also ask a question by raising a new discussion in a section below, and add {{Help me}} to your message, and someone will be along to answer it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I see that you've decided to double down, and insist yet again. Please read and understand the following important information:

You currently appear to be 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. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 controversial changes and 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.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself are reverting sourced material that is found WITHIN THE ARTICLE itself. I do not want to edit war, but I did not enter anything which is not sourced AND not already found in the article, specifically the subsection titled 'Middle English'. Greumaich (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted the same material on three occasions:

01:34, May 8 (initial add), 01:43, May 8 (revert), and 19:51, May 8 (revert).

This is not the way to get things done. Wikipedia operates by consensus, which is to say, by collaborating with other editors and talking out content disputes. When there is a disagreement about content, we resolve it with discussion on the Talk page. Per WP:BRD, when you add material and are reverted, you should leave the article in status quo ante for the time being, and come to the Talk page to discuss your concerns. Instead, you have reverted, not once, but twice, to insist on your preferred version. Don't do that. Use the talk page to discuss, instead. There is no deadline to get the article "right"; if your concerns are justified, then the article will reflect that, soon enough. Edit warring is never justified. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any concerns. I merely entered perfectly sourced content, found within the article, into the leading paragraphs. I edited as per WP:BRD. If you have an issue with it, then explain yourself on the talk page. If you are opposed to content already in the article, then describe why. Greumaich (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your recent editing history 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. For such a new account, you sure are edit-warring a lot, especially on subhects you seem to know very little about. I strongly suggest you slow down. Khirurg (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing based on what the articles and academic sources themselves say. You are pushing a Greek nationalist and anti-Albanian POV on one article with no sources to support your opposition. Greumaich (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You need to stop edit warring on multiple pages, working instead to gain consensus for your changes. Again, please observe WP:ONUS. You are risking imminent sanctions. El_C 00:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, edit warring is wrong even if you think you're right. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say otherwise? Cheers. Greumaich (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning

Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you also sent a warning to the other user (User:Ermenrich), who is obviously edit warring, and also checking your own behaviour. Greumaich (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review wp:bold and wp:consensus. It is obvious from the discussion that your change does not have consensus.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So do you, because your changes have no consensus, and no scholarly support from the majority of scholars. Greumaich (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wp:ONUS to convince others to accept your changes, not the other way around. Multiple editors have warned you now and you don’t seem to understand.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been warned. And you are the one reverting my edit. The onus is actually on you to explain yourself and your reverts at Hyksos and the Exodus, because the issue has been resolved at Book of Exodus by removing the section entirely. You are reinserting non-scholarly material, and removing the majority view of scholars. It is upon you to explain why. Greumaich (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re distorting what the sources say, as has been said to you already. Discussion of the issue belongs where it was first broached: you made the edit, the onus is on you to explain it.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was distorted. I entered exactly that stated in the sources, especially Faust.

"While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, AND that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt (cf. Bietak 2003;Gottwald 1979; Herrmann 1985: 48; Mazar 2001: 76; Na’aman 1994: 245; Stiebing 1989:197–9; Friedman 1997: 82–83; Halpern 1992:104, 107; Halpern 2003; Dever 1993: 31*;1995: 211; Tubb 1998: 169; Williamson 1998:149–150; Hoffmeier 1997; Weisman 1984:15–16; Malamat 1997; Yurco 1997: 44–51;Machinist 1991: 210; 1994; Hendel 2001, 2002;Knohl 2008; see also Levy and Holl 2002; and see many contributions to this volume). In this, I am not referring to the various traditions of Israel’s interaction with Egypt resulting from the era of Egyptian control in Canaan or from some relations with the Hyksos, which found their way into the Bible (Russell 2009; see also Hendel 2001; Knohl 2008; Na’aman 2011; more below), but to the possibility that there was a group which ﬂed Egypt, and brought this story of Exodus with it. Though the size of this group is debated, most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds (some give it more weight, e.g., Hoffmeier 1997). Still, despite the limited size of this group, it appears that during the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis its story became part of the common history of all the Israelites." (P.476 [1]) Greumaich (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Not observing WP:ONUS as instructed to do. 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 ~~~~}}.

Signing retroactively: El_C 20:06, 25 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate 3RR or any other Wikipedia policy. I made care to not do so, and went to the talk page as instructed. The person who blocked me did so without a valid reason, and 48 hours in particular is harsh. To show why this block also has no justification, he/she did not assign a block to User:Ermenrich who was edit warring as well.

Decline reason:

You say you did not violate any Wikipedia policy, but then imply you were indeed edit-warring. That policy is WP:EW and if you were edit-warring, a block is reasonable. You also did not address WP:ONUS. Yamla (talk) 20:03, 25 July 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.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule... (bold in the original). El_C 20:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that is your reasoning, where is the block for User:Ermenrich for edit warring on the same articles? In fact, where is even a warning given to him?? This seems to me like unfair bias. Greumaich (talk) 20:12, 25 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for edit warring. I should have went to the talk page sooner, and I did not intend to do that. Does this merit a 48 hour block? No, I do not think so. And if that merits a block in your view, then surely User:Ermenrich deserves one as well for engaging in the exact same behaviour on the articles in question. Otherwise, you are coming across as quite biased here. As for WP:ONUS, my intention is to find consensus, but that was not being shown by the opposing user who again was edit warring. All that person was doing was removing a highly respected academic source simply because they personally disagreed with it. Having read WP:ONUS, I am aware that consensus is as important as reliable sources. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would further add that I went to the dispute resolution process [2] when I felt there was an impasse. Clearly I want to find a consensus, and am seeking the right channels in doing so. The other user didn't even attempt to participate in that process. Am I the one really not acting in good faith here? I have tried to follow Wikipedia guidelines for resolving the dispute. I did not violate 3RR. I have kept discussing and stated I wish to find consensus. I am really at a loss here. I assure you I do not want to disrupt any articles and do want to find consensus.Greumaich (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, the block has expired. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:25, 27 July 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.

Continuing to WP:NOTTHEM Ermenrich is unlikely to help this unblock appeal to succeed. If I thought Ermenrich needed to be blocked, too, I would have done it already. El_C 20:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, how exactly does my edit warring merit a 48 hour block, but his edit warring does not (and doesn't even get a warning)? Double standards? This does not add justification for my block. I have apologized, stated I want to seek consensus, and I stopped editing those articles long ago when I realized what was happening. I would further add that I went to the dispute resolution process [3] when I felt there was an impasse. Clearly I want to find a consensus, and am seeking the right channels in doing so. The other user didn't even attempt to participate. Am I the one really not acting in good faith here? I have tried to follow Wikipedia guidelines for resolving the dispute. I did not violate 3RR. I have kept discussing and stated I wish to find consensus. I am really at a loss here. I assure you I do not want to disrupt any articles and do want to find consensus. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Greumaich (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is on the wrong end of WP:ONUS, which you were warned about, by me. Dispute resolution requests may take time. I suggest you be patient. El_C 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, DRN was the wrong venue — have you not read their disclaimer at the top of the page, which reads: [t]his is an informal place to resolve small content disputes (bold is my emphasis). This is not a small content dispute. El_C 20:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I wasn't sure how 'small' or 'large' of a content dispute this fell under. If it is too large for 'DRN', which process is the appropriate one to use? Greumaich (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greumaich, I am not going to decline your unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM and I am willing to consider unblocking you; however, since the block appears warranted, I ask that you please clarify what you would do if I were to unblock you now. How would you go about this dispute?

Salvio

21:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just intend to discuss with other users on the talk pages until a resolution is adopted. Greumaich (talk) 00:43, 1 August 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi. I just returned to log in to my account, and was surprised to learn I'm now indefinitely blocked? May I ask why? I accepted much of the reasoning for the 48 hour block, so decided to move on, but mainly disputed the length of it at the time. This is my only account, so I'm at a loss about what to do now. Thank you. Greumaich (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is for abusing multiple accounts, based on the discussion at [this](and the block is based on both behavioral and (in part) technical data). If you have not used other accounts, you will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why the evidence indicates otherwise. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 1 August 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.