User talk:Tcob44

Image copyright problem with Image:Sothis.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sothis.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image should fall under "fair use", however, if you still cannot resolve this problem, please feel free to delete the image. I've re-uploaded another image of this hieroglyph which I personally created.

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Sept3.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Sept.jpg. The copy called Image:Sept.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Friday the 13th, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. El on ka 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Knights Templar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Do not remove sources and then add original research El on ka 03:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tcob44, I understand if you feel strongly about this Friday the 13th thing, but you can't just go deleting sources and inserting your own speculation. See also Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. If you continue down this path, your account access may end up blocked. --El on ka 03:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. El on ka 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th / Knights Templar

tcob44: There is a previous consensus on this issue that it was treated correctly in the text prior to your editing. If you want to change the consensus for this bit, then you should present your arguments on the talkpage to convince other editors. I'm not sure how much background you have on Wikipedia, but just in case let me point you to two important policies: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VERIFY. Please don't continue edit warring, or you may be blocked. Avruch^T 03:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on the article talkpage. Avruch^T 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

96 h for disruptive editing. Moreschi (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please be aware that on Wikipedia, there are requirements about civility and no personal attacks. This comment of yours was a negative comment towards another editor, which is against our policies.[1] Please, would you consider going back and refactoring your comment, to remove the attacks? For best results, all comments on article talkpages should be about the content and not about the contributors. Thanks, --El on ka 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in and stop editing using your IPs

Please log in and stop editing using your IPs:

-- Brangifer (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

copied from Talk:Triple Goddess This is aimed specifically at the user signing him/herself as tcb044, editing with the IP address 68.217.45.11 and before that editing as Tcob44 (talk · contribs).
1. We expect editors to sign their posts on talk pages - it says that below the editing window. This is just common courtesy to allow ease of communication and transparency.

2. We ask editors not to make personal attacks. The editor in question is well aware of this and has a history of making personal attacks both under this IP and his/her account. Apologies followed by resumption of personal attacks aren't very usful. Continuation of personal attacks often leads to editors being blocked.

3. We also ask editors to avoid changing (redacting) their talk page edits. As WP:REDACT points out, " Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.". As it is now, any reader seeing this page may see other editors replies which were in fact to statements no longer visible or changed considerably. Please stop. If you've written something you no longer believe is correct or wish to say, strike it out and start a new comment explaining the strikeout if necessary.

We have these guidelines to make talk pages easier to use and less intimidating. Let's all try to follow them.Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed an IP address, the editor in question is also editing as 67.34.225.133 (talk · contribs) as well as 68.217.45.11 (talk · contribs) and has been asked by another editor to use his/her account instead of IP addresses. Adding 'Tcob44' here doesn't show up in the edit history of this page or articles, and makes it difficult for other editors/administrators to trace the history of the user's edits (and of any warnings they may have been given). Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug- Based on the above post, I have to ask: Are you trying to get me banned? (That is, if you are actually talking about me in the first place since I've never posted anything under tcb044.) Regarding my apologies being followed by further "personal attacks", do you have any examples of this, other than some subtle innuendo in reply to bone-headed and/or downright rude statements and tactics by other editors? Or are you referring to this continuing after a similar situation which occurred over a year or so ago when I was banned from editing for 96 hours over the changing of a single word on the Knights Templar article? (Rather draconian tactics, in my opinion...) Regarding that one, single situation, the editor of that article was under the mistaken assumption that the Knights Templar were "incorrectly" linked to the Friday the 13th superstition. So I changed it to read "sometimes" linked. In the end, the individual tried to get me banned for my persistent efforts to make sure this sentence remained correct/accurate and they ultimately had to resort to making up a reason ("Pushing a fringe theory") when I later added a *sourced* statement to the article that some scholars believe that the Templars utilized an atbash cipher technique, thus revealing the mysterious "Baphomet" as a Hebrew code for "Sophia". (Even more draconian tactics.) But don't take my word for it, I encourage anyone reading about my ongoing struggles to *help improve* the accuracy of the information on the Triple Goddess article here on wikipedia to read about the similar problems I encountered with the "Consensus of admins" on the Knights Templar discussion page (under the Friday the 13th section). As for your issue with editing posts, if I have to make changes, usually they occur before anyone has replied. Sorry if that is a problem, but sometimes it is going to happen. BTW- Don't you think you're going a little overboard on this whole "personal attacks" issue?!? I think you need to re-read this thread and try to stop being bitter about everything. Although it's never fun to discover you are wrong, it really shouldn't be that much of a surprise when it occurs with a topic you a unfamiliar with, should it? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward and Assuming Good Faith

The below has been copied from User Talk:68.158.203.66 and posted here:

Hello. I've taken a look at your edits under this IP address and as User:68.217.45.185, and I'd like to let you know that your editing at Triple Goddess and Talk:Triple Goddess are problematic. You appear to be new here, and while you mention policies such as WP:NPOV, I don't think you've read and understood them. It would be an excellent idea to read that policy, as well as the other two core content policies--no original research and verifiability--in order to understand Wikipedia's aims, which are different than most encyclopedias'. In addition, you should read the no personal attacks policy, which you have violated several times on the talk page (telling editors that they have a male-chauvinist bias is one example).

Lastly, you should realize that edit-warring is frowned upon here, and it's something that you've been doing with your edits to Triple Goddess. Repeatedly reverting other people's edits and/or restoring your own when they are changed can be construed as edit-warring, and it's something that you've been doing under various IP addresses since May 6. Please build consensus for your changes through discussion on the talk page; if you cannot convince other editors that your changes should be incorporated into the article, don't edit war to get them in--that may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Edit war and WP:3RR for policies regarding edit warring. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit is an example of what I'm talking about. You made this edit before [1], got reverted [2], and restored your preferred version, all without discussion on the talk page. If you continue to edit in this fashion, you may be blocked for edit warring. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus- Just so you know, I made that edit and *then* I read your message. But yes, I know I'm on thin ice and I certainly did not mean to flagrantly disregard your warning. (And thank you BTW, for a very professional and polite warning.) Anyway, I don't know if you've already done so, but please take a look at this article right before I posted on the Discussion Page and compare it to its current version. I think you will agree, the original article was clearly biased and misrepresented many statements/quotes. For me, this is where everything started... Originally, I came here to do some research and when I first read this article, it *deeply* offended me. (Both with it's subtle as well as blatant bias against neo-Pagans and Robert Graves.) So much so, that I suppose you could say I was in "attack mode" when I made my first post on the message board. Unfortunately, I eventually came to realize that this was the exact *wrong* way to go about things. Mainly because my attack only resulted in counter-attacks against me. Things quickly went downhill from there since there was now a general unwillingness on the part of two wikipedia admins to allow me to make even the most minor of edits, most of which they probably wouldn't have minded had I started things out differently, which made it quite a long slog to get anything productive accomplished in the long run. It should be pointed out that I did on two occasions try to make nice as you can see on the Discussion Page, however, it was too little too late for everyone else involved. But despite the fact that things ended up in a four-way (pardon the expression) p!ssing contest over the content of this article, you would be hard-pressed to say it isn't a much better article, the direct result of my well-intentioned but very poorly executed efforts to maintain accuracy and a NPOV. Personally, I even contemplated apologizing to Ricky and Doug (and maybe even Davemon...) as well as logging into my account since I have nothing to hide from anyone. Of course, I am very leery of doing this since I had an unfortunate experience about a year ago which resulted in me getting blocked over repeatedly changing (four times) a single word ('incorrectly' to 'sometimes') to an article by an overly possessive contributor. But before I got a chance to apologize, the Triple-Goddess tag-team squad had launched another counter-offensive which quickly dissipated any feelings of reconciliation I may have briefly entertained. Ultimately, I wish I had handled everything differently and didn't let this article get under my skin as much as it did in the beginning. (Of course, those who were involved in its creation intended it to do just that. And fortuitously, I happen to enjoy knocking around individuals who like to belittle other people's beliefs. Not to mention, I'll defend Graves to the bitter end.) So anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I thank you for your patience and taking the time to read this. Also, if you have any diplomatic suggestions as to how to move forward from here, I'm willing to listen to them. Cheers. tcob44

Hi tcob44, in general one keeps the conversation on the talk page where it started, so I'll reply here, and you can reply on this same page (but other editors will follow different practices--Wikipedia is inconsistent). I think you've diagnosed where things went wrong for you pretty well. It's very easy to approach Wikipedia as something to fight over--in fact, I think a lot of editors begin their career here by getting into a fight about a subject they feel passionately about. By the same token, though, that means that most editors get through that initial conflict and find a way to get things accomplished.

One thing to do when you're in a conflict is to step away from the article. Either get away from Wikipedia for awhile, or work on articles that you feel less strongly about. Then you can return to the article when things are calmer.

Another thing to do, as I suggested earlier, is to read the content policies. NPOV sounds simple--"neutral point of view"--but it's not what it sounds like at first blush. It means that articles reflect the balance of opinions on a particular subject. If, for instance, the majority of scholarship that treats the Triple Goddess thinks that Graves is bunk, the article will say that; at the same time, it will also say that Graves' ideas have had a deep influence on neopaganism.

I don't think an apology is needed, so much as you want to change your approach: discuss proposed changes in a spirit of cooperation (even if you feel other editors aren't acting in a cooperative way), and make sure your proposed edits are based on good sources, and you'll be fine. If you create an account and log in I think you'll find it helps--it may not be fair, but named editors are treated better than IP addresses. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus- I'm going to follow your advice as well as sign back into my account. Also, moving forward from here I'm going to make more of an effort to assume good faith with other editors. Finally, and most importantly, I'm going to be absolutely sure that I never begin any more discussions in "attack mode" again. Cheers. Tcob44 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Nice to see you "back" and I wish you a good future here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ∗ \ / (⁂) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you will be blocked from editing. Blueboy 96 02:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deleting anything from these pages. I was checking to see if anyone had responded to my post, however, it hadn't been archived along with the rest of the thread so I added it. Twice there was some type of technical issue (Server Timed Out or something), so perhaps that was the cause. Tcob44 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]