User talk:Nnatan

Welcome!

Hello, Nnatan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Shirahadasha 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Solomon's Temple

Hello. Wikipedia has a Verification policy requiring all content added to our encyclopedia to be based on reliable sources. Please take a moment to look at our polices. Unfortunately, the source you provided for the content you added, http://www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org, the website of the N. Natan foundation, does not appear to meet the criteria listed. The book the web site discusses, The Temple of Solomon Could Not Stand On Its Water Tower, as well as other content, appears to be self-published. Unfortunately our policies prohibit using materials from self-published sources. If you disagree, please feel free to discuss the matter on the article's discussion page, Talk:Solomon's Temple. We appreciate your efforts to contribute to our encyclopedia. Thank you, --Shirahadasha 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit this article without discussing your proposed changes on the article's talk page, Talk:Solomon's Temple. Wikipedia has a three revert rule and other policies to ensure that editors cooperate in the editing process, and editors who repeatedly do not comply with these policies can be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Please respond to the comments that have been made about your edits on Talk:Solomon's Temple prior to making additional edits. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. --Shirahadasha 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with Shirahadasha, except for his characterization of our not using self-published materials as "unfortunate". Frankly, in this case, where you seem to be trying to insert into an encyclopedia your own research that appears never to have been through anything approximating academic peer review, I think it is fortunate that we have rules against that.

There is nothing wrong with you having your own views and publishing them. There is something wrong with trying to get those views into an encyclopedia as if they were mainstream scholarship when they are not. No other encylopedia would consider accepting your material on this basis. The fact that it is physically possible for you to edit here does not change the fact that this material does not belong here. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM WARNING: Please be advised that we are aware that you have repeatedly made edits pointing to your own websites and self-published sources, ignoring our warnings and our requests to discuss the issue. Further edits of this nature will be considered vandalism and will result in your being blocked from editing in accordance with our blocking policy. If you believe this warning is in error, please discuss this on the article's talk page as mentioned above. In particular, if you have published work on the subject that meets the criteria listed in our reliable source policy, we urge you to bring this fact to our attention. Thank you for your coorperation. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

Please do not make threats of disruption as you have done here. Naconkantari 22:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this admin to reconsider this block. `'mikka 07:49, 27 December 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

The user did not actually engage in the revert war yet. The only preventive blocks per policy are personal and legal threats. `'mikka 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I will assume good faith and assume you were being truthful when you said So either you do not erase my contributions (and correct only my english) or I erase your contributions until you block me.. Threats to cause harm to Wikipedia are grounds for blocking because we assume an editor is being truthful unless evidence exists they are not being truthful. All blocks are preventative. -- HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 27 December 2006 (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.

I expressed my disagreement in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_policy, since it is of general characer, rather than specific to this guy. `'mikka 19:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Legal Threats

Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats are often blocked indefinitely until their legal case is withdrawn or resolved. Please try to keep a cool head and work positively with other editors. Thanks. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]