User talk:Themainman69

Welcome!

Hello, Themainman69, 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:

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 here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Jews are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Also Talk:Book of Revelation Aristophanes68 (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jews. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm Aristophanes68. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User_talk:Themainman69#There_appeared_to_be_a_misunderstanding.2C_and_I.27m_glad_we_solved_it. that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Anti-semitic attacks on other editors are unacceptable, even when they're on your own talk page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported your disgusting hypocrisy, bigotry, and fanaticism to the administrators

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist user not here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great so the guy i was talking to reported me or what? and i thought we were friends :- Themainman69 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

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).

Themainman69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Guy355 was is an antijapethite for criticizing my ethno religious, racial and historical tradition (Caucasian Christianity) what he was saying was cold but i have thick skin its not the first time someone has criticized my ethno religious belief. I successfully got him to agree to change the lede in the 'jew' topic to a historical and scientifically accurate one (from an ipse dixit no data claim to 'claim descent from') as opposed to his own personal religious interpretation of the topic, he is free to have his personal religious beliefs/ideologies but not free to insert them into wikipedia articles, thanks for agreeing to the change guy ;) Themainman69 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM: Classic case of not reading guide to appealing blocks. —Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2014 (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.