User talk:PL0TWiSTER

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, PL0TWiSTER, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your recent editing history at Genetic history of North Africa 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; read about 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. Skitash (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the source points out Tunisian genome, the information about North African genome is secondary and is not revealed by this study [1]. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About North African genome, this must be sourced by another study otherwise it must be correlated by the study on the Tunisian genome, because this same study specifies that it comes from another work. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies @Skitash PL0TWiSTER (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop edit warring and start discussing, on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, what do you think about this subject? PL0TWiSTER (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the information about North African genome should be deleted if it is only sourced by study of the Tunisian genome because it is secondary and is not revealed by this same study or specify that the information comes from this study. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash PL0TWiSTER (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick@MathEvo@Drmies PL0TWiSTER (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the North African genome, I have noticed a strong activity from @Skitash around using of two/three sources, creating a section on it in order to highlight the Arab presence during the Middle Ages , is this necessary? [2] @Drmies@Dimadick@MathEvo PL0TWiSTER (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there are several duplicates, what do you think? PL0TWiSTER (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Treetoes023@WikiUser4020 PL0TWiSTER (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you need to calm down and stop adding to this discussion here on your talk page. Instead, you should create a discussion at Talk:Genetic history of North Africa. Take all of the points you have made here, and any other points that you may have, and put them into the discussion in one post, you may split this post into multiple paragraphs if you so please, as long as it all remains in one post. The discussion located here on your talk page is confusing and hard to navigate, putting all of your points in one post would prevent this confusion and make your points easier to see. When you create the discussion at Talk:Genetic history of North Africa, ping all of the relevant editors, especially the ones that you have already pinged here, and we can continue the discussion there. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Genetic history of North Africa. Skitash (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Genetic history of North Africa) for a period of 2 weeks for ongoing edit warring, refusal to seek the article talk page. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2023 (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).

PL0TWiSTER (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I'm partially blocked because i have tried to correct a pushing on Genetic history of North Africa. There's already a subject about this on the article's talk page, where i explain the changes i made. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you're partially blocked for edit warring. Your reason for doing so is not important. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:12, 30 June 2023 (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 have added the talk page to the partial block for the likely use of an IP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 June 2023 (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).

PL0TWiSTER (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, an administrator trusted the @Skitash's words without using the appropriate tool. I have been partial blocked for edit warring, then @Treetoes023 advised me to discuss in talk page of the article before. @Skitash has done a report twice for multiple account and disruptive edit (when i was already blocked for editing) while i was discussing with him in talk page, once, twice this is a right abuse and a will to harm me. Please use checkuser about me and 102.217.80.26, because i don't do multiple account and that will prove my good faith. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As a checkuser, I would not be permitted to comment on that. So, declined. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2023 (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.

See WP:CHECKME. You could have saved yourself time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]