User talk:Truthwelltold

February

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you edit war on a page, as you did to Proto-Indo-Europeans repeatedly. Please discuss any changes on the talk page. Dr.K. (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop censoring contradictions of your opaquely one-sided opinions.

It's no censorship. Your views are expressed in a POV way without discussion on the talk page. On top of that they are also big and drastic changes to the articles. You can't do that. Sorry that's Wikipedia policy. Dr.K. (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is censorship and you know it. You give one side of the Anatolian issue without exposition. This is biased and you know it. You are just trying to silence some very strong arguments against the unsupported statement made in the text. YOU are violating Wikipedia policy.

Truthwelltold, didn't you read that info somewhere? Why not cite those sources? Do you not understand that Wikipedia policies require them for material that is challenged? See WP:NOR and WP:V. Cite sources, and that would make your efforts far more productive. SamEV (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict) ::Obviously I am wasting my time talking to you unfortunately. You can see I am not the only one reverting you. Please read the Wikipedia policies before trying to impose your POV here. That's the last time you will hear from me on this subject because I'm afraid you are too steamed up to listen to reason. Dr.K. (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statements that are being contradicted are unsupported. They are flat statements without citation. If anyone wants citations for my contradictory statements I will provide them -- none should be in doubt. There is no evidence that Hattic was spoken in all of Anatolia in 6000 BC - 7000 BC to the exclusion of any form of IE language. The burden would be on the author to support such an extreme view. The statement is of course biased and definitely POV and that is why my statements are being objected to.

Talk in article

Please do not place arguments or opinions in the body of articles, no matter how much you may disagree. We have talk pages to discuss issues: please use them. Acroterion _(talk) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also breached WP:3RR and may be blocked for edit-warring. Please desist and take it to the talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Acroterion _(talk) 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to block you, as well. Edit warring is not an acceptable method. Please use talk pages to develop consensus, instead. You'll be able to return to editing once the block expires. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO Acroterion and Luna Santin

I am not familiar with procedures but I will try to learn. However I do want to point out that the statement I was contradicting is still without any support or citation. Is there a way that I can point this out or must I get "consensus" from the very person who is failing to correct the statement? I'm also confused about whether or not I am the only person being corrected for being in an "edit war" -- it takes two doesn't it?

Thanks

Hello Truthwelltold. You seem to have toned down the rhetoric a bit. Therefore I will try to explain to you what is meant by edit warring. Usually the type of text you inserted and the tone you employed in your prose do not belong in an article. They are more suitable for putting forth arguments on a talk page of an article. There you can discuss your points with other editors and when you reach a consensus you can modify the article, but not before that. We don't insert comments like NOTE:, or use expressions such as of course in an encyclopaedic article because this makes it sound like a rebuttal not an article. And, of course, every time we put huge new quantities of material in the article we must cite reliable publications, papers etc. to support our arguments. All of these points, unfortunately, you did not follow. And you kept reverting. That's called an edit war. Defending the integrity of a Wikipedia article from unsourced statements is called protecting Wikipedia. This is the crucial distinction. Now. if you engage in scientific discussion with the local experts here and you reach an agreement without edit warring, there will be no further blocking or other related problems. I hope this helps. Dr.K. (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Dr. K explains, the article cannot be a battleground: the discussion page is the place for the advancement of ideas for the improvement of an article. While it can indeed take two (or more) to edit-war, carrying out a change through commentary and unsourced assertion in the body of the article tips the scale into tendentious editing: the reverter is justified in removing unsourced information and commentary, and blocking is necessary to protect the project. You may wish to review a few of our abundant policies concerning editing, such as WP:VERIFY and WP:TALK. WP:EDITWAR may also be helpful. Please note that you were only blocked for 24 hours, which provides a chance to review standards and procedures. You are free to return to editing (constructively and collaboratively) when the block expires, and once you've accustomed yourself to the way we manage an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Acroterion _(talk) 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]