User talk:Pgbrux

Welcome!

Hello, Pgbrux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Atacama skeleton seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. stating as fact that it's humanoid is against at least WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've continued. [1] Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

--Ronz (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're editing parallels that of Schladd (talk · contribs) and Stickleback987 (talk · contribs). See WP:SOCK in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a final warning

If you remove the word 'human' from the Atacama skeleton article again without prior consensus, I am going to report the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I'll write up an edit-warring report as soon as I have the time, though that may not be anytime soon. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Atacama skeleton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 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. Doug Weller (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for tendentious editing at Atacama skeleton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Atacama skeleton. You've had numerous warnings. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Atacama skeleton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 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. Doug Weller talk 21:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued edit warring at Atacama skeleton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}.

Kuru (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

My apologies. I am a novice editor unaware of the policies. However, my latest edit did include an RS for the information I am providing, which was the reason for reverting the previous edits (not having an RS). Yet these edits were still reverted despite the provided source. I apologize for my disruption, but I don't see any reason to revert sourced information that is crucial to the truthfulness of this page.

Decline reason:

Being right would not be an excuse for edit-warring. You should also use this break to familiarize yourself with what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and what doesn't. Huon (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2016 (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.

You've reverted in the same phase, "of a human" four times: at 22:19, 20:44, 19:36, 19:28. This is, of course, a continuation of your edit warring over the same phrase last year. Adding a youtube link to a "ufologist" is not really helpful. You've been warned about edit warring explicitly three times. I also suspect that many of the IP editors during the last year are likely you, as are the accounts that Mr. Ronz notes above. Kuru (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]