User talk:Saronsacl

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Copying my comment from 112.211.214.39's talk page:

@Saronsacl: Please note that your block is short (36 hours), it may be best to just wait until it expires instead of repeating unblock requests. When someone reverts a change you have made, if you wish to have it restored, it is important to open a discussion at the relevant article's talk page to reach consensus before making those changes again. For the relevant policies and guidelines, please see WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ENGAGE and WP:DISCUSSFAIL. While edit summaries are important, they do not replace consensus forming. Also of interest is WP:OVERLINKING if the article already discusses the subject and links to those articles. In case the articles do not already make the link, claiming that there is a relation usually also requires including a reliable source (WP:RS) that is also making the correlation to avoid original research and synthesis (WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS). Finally, to respect due weight (WP:DUE), depending on the importance of the subtopic, it may merit a section, if notable enough; then the lead is a summary of the article (usually also observing the weight of the different subtopics). Hopefully after your block expires you can edit more cooperatively and successfully.
And adding:
For the period you are blocked, any edits made by evading the block must be reverted according to policies. It also is unacceptable to use more than one account illegitimately (or to edit logged out and not make it clear that both the IP address and account are related). For more information, see WP:EVASION and WP:SOCK. On the other hand, using an account is recommended, so thank you for creating one. Please ensure to only edit using this account after your block expires, this will make communication easier. Thank you, — Paleo Neonate — 17:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manfield's book

Please don't use this for anything. It's a self-published book and fails our criteria for sources. Also, see also entries shouldn't have references. If an article isn't clearly related it shouldn't be in the see also section. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for notifying me.Saronsacl (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

This is with regard to Ancient Mesopotamian religion, Sumer, and Sumerian religion. I have opened a section on at Talk:Ancient_Mesopotamian_religion#Abrahamic_religion_and_mesopotamian_sexuality_morality.

Your recent editing history 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 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. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your addition to Abrahamic religions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you vey much for the informationSaronsacl (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Sumer and other articles; copyright violations

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You are continuing the same problem after returning from a previous block. Up till May 31 you also used Special:Contributions/112.211.214.39 which has its own block. You have scarcely even stoppped for breath after being reverted by multiple people. You need to figure out and acknowledge what is wrong with your approach. Any administrator may unblock your account if they become convinced you will follow our policies in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog was being a disingenuous ass, insisting that I was putting badly sourced material when in fact everything was supported by sources and even word-for-word(which turned out to be a violation of copyright, but I am very sorry for that.)Saronsacl (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Saronsacl (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like how I, for putting the well-sourced back, was blocked, and how he, despite refusing to see the truth, got of scot-free.

If dogshit like this happens again, I will become disgusted at how this encyclopedia panders to the bias and disingenuity of its editors just to atone for a petty "edit war" Saronsacl (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss more, propose changes, and wait for feedback on the talk page before making the changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I was just angered by the severe disingenuity of Jytdog. I will never edit war again. Saronsacl (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:

Could you please unblock me? I would like to discuss over at the talk page over this. Saronsacl (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses on this page indicate to me that you don't understand our system. The chance that you will ever be able to edit neutrally appears low. I am declining to lift the block, but other admins can consider your request. So far as I can tell, User:Jytdog represents mainstream Wikipedia opinion, so if you can't work with him, I do not see a successful future for you. You don't seem aware that so many different people were reverting your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, @Katolophyromai:, you seem to be interested in the same topics as I am. I am in desparate need of your help. Jytdog keeps on insisting that eveything I added was unsupported by sources, which just a single search on Google Books will disprove. I have no idea why he keeps on saying this. Could you help us resolve this dispute? Thanks, Saronsacl (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Saronsacl (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When your block expires, please come to Talk:Ancient_Mesopotamian_religion#Abrahamic_religion_and_mesopotamian_sexuality_morality and we can discuss the content you would like to add. So far your responses have not been dialogical, but rather just asserting that it is fine. It isn't, and if you don't understand why, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:

The only people who undid my edits on all but one article was Jytdog, and the one article where another editor undid it was Ancient Mesopotamian religion. Jytdog refuses to acknowledge that the data I put in were in the sources, so he was biased. Why would anyone think that I am not being neutral is beyond me. I never inserted my own opinions anywhere. Saronsacl (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:

Well, there is a particular reson why I refuse to engage in dialog with you.

Your insistence that everything I added were not supported by the sources I cited is absolutely offensive and insulting to the intelligence. I did not even KNOW about the stuff I put in before I read about them on the books I have cited on Google Books. The page numbers I put in were all correct. So can you please elaborate on WHY you keep on saying this? Saronsacl (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:

I can work with anyone. In fact that was how everyhing went, until Jytdog came along. The only reason I edit-warred was because it immediately seemed futile that Jytdog would stop his nonesense that the material I put was somehow not supported by the sources. Now, Doug Weller's reason for reverting my edit, now THAT is a good reason. I did not revert it, and I would have engaged in a discussion with him. Same thing with NeilN-which is why I immediately reworded my edits to avoid copyvio. If you go up this lage, you will see that I was at peace with everyone-except Jytdog. His reasons are such stubborn bullshit that anyone who can read and go to Google Books and check the sources can see hat he is conpletely wrong (except on the unencyclopedic note, which is the only valid point he has made so far). Unless he checks his opinions, reads the pages I pointed to or at the very least explained himself instead of repeating his position over and over-while accusing me of insisting on something that is not true-I am afraid I cannot engage un dialog with him, as such seems futile and pointless. Saronsacl (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:

Considering how offensive your reasons have been, I cannot make myself be patient enough to wait 2 weeks for your explanation.

Can I request you to explain EVRYTHING about his whole "material not supported by sources" right now on this talk page so we can have a civil discussion in the future? Saronsacl (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want the discussion after my my block to be clear and civil, so please explain yourself here. Saronsacl (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today Saronsacl (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I can know your position right away Saronsacl (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Launderville book, I cited page 28, not the pages you mentioned. Page 28 clearly talks about Sumerian myths. You completely ignored this on the talk pages of Abrahamic Mesopotamian religion and Sumerian religion. Saronsacl (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate you being willing to ~kind of~ talk now, while you are blocked you can only use your talk page to appeal your block. As I said above when your block is lifted I would be happy to discuss. (Yes, I have heard you on the page 28 thing btw and we can talk about that when you return). But as long as you continue making this personal, it is unlikely your block will be lifted and if you go back to that, it will probably be re-instated. Please use this time to learn how to talk through disputes calmly,focusing on content. There is no reason to get so angry or to personalize things. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe if you had the grace to respond to the page 28 thing earlier, I might have stopped edit warring earlier on. Also, the unencyclopedic thing was a very valid point; what you from mentioning it from the start? Instead of, you know, accusing me of LYING about everything I added, which is just so inaccurate and wrong? But whatever, nothing really personal, just some last complaints about how you could have told me earlier on about how unencyclopedic my edit was. Looking forward to our discussion. Saronsacl (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are in this situation because you kept trying to force the content in and barely participated at Talk. As I said we can talk more at the Talk page when you are unblocked. I will not reply here further. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied that. I was making a few complaints. I did nkt even expect you to respond. Saronsacl (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Wikipedia

You are starting to lose your temper again. If you find yourself getting angry please walk away and do something else for a while and come back when you are calm.

Please be sure to sign your posts - I got three edit conflicts, the last because the bot was signing your unsigned post.

Working in Wikipedia can be difficult - it is hard to craft content about civilizations that lasted over a thousand years that is NPOV and that summarizes reliable sources in ways that remain grounded. And it is always difficult when people disagree. So please just take it slow. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your new addition to Sumer

Hello! Welcome back to Wikipedia. I appreciate your recent edits, but I would like to point out that, although it appears you have now begun to make an effort to put statements into your own words, some of the statements in the section you just added still qualify as a close paraphrase. For example, you write: "Evidence suggests, however, that surreptitious fornication was not altogether unknown." I checked out the page of Kramer's book that you have cited here and Kramer himself writes: "...there is some evidence to show that surreptitious premarital love-making was not altogether unknown." Your version of the last part of the sentence is exactly identical, except for the fact that you have swapped out the term "premarital love-making" for the word "fornication." Please try to be more careful in the future; this still technically counts as plagiarism. In order to put it in your own words, you have to completely rephrase what Kramer says, not just change a word or two. Once again, you seem to be getting better about this, but this is still not in your own words. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank youSaronsacl (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly alright. I completely understand. Sometimes it is hard to rephrase things. I am just trying to make sure you know to be more careful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it!

Please talk, and stop trying to force edits. You are going to end up blocked again. Please talk! Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2017 (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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Sumer

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long term edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

@EdJohnston I accept my errors, my stubborness, and have realized that edit-warring is just not an approach that works. Please unblock me, or at elast reduce my sentence I have realized that what I did was wrong,and I deeply regret it. I vow to never break any wikipedia policy ever again Saronsacl (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On June 14 you said you would "never edit war again". By July you were edit warring again. I don't see why your assurances now should be taken to be more enduring than those of June. Huon (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2017 (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.

@Doug Weller:, I have realized why I was wrong, yet EdJohnston has not unblocked me. Wouls it be okay for you to do the job? ThanksSaronsacl (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I recommend waiting, doing something else, thinking about it, then to formulate a convincing unblock request after a reasonable delay. The block log shows a short 36h block then another 2 weeks one, for copyright text additions and edit warring. When not indefinite, this third block would probably have been lasting 1-3 months. An administrator may consider reasonable to unblock your account after a few weeks with a convincing unblock request, but I cannot decide for them. What happens is unfortunate because some of your contributions had merit. I want to also highlight Jytdog's reccomendation to take a break when a situation becomes irritating then to open a discussion to form consensus. If you eventually have the opportunity to edit again, that is. It's important to remember that other editors also take care of articles and that there's a history; improving articles is a non-urgent process that is never over. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]