User talk:Unesco2015

Welcome!

Hello, Unesco2015, 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) 10:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of certain site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is not censored. If material is reliably sourced, it is given due weight.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
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).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
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.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Zeitgeist (film series), will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Zeitgeist (film series) 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.
You need to stop reverting over and over and work to get consensus on your changes on the article talk page. The 3RR, or three revert rule is a bright-line rule that if crossed (meaning you make more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period) you will almost certainly be blocked from editing for a period of time. Your initial change can be considered a revert if you are returning the article to a previous state. At this point, you are either at or close to that limit. Please STOP edit-warring to push your preferred version and discuss the changes on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Zeitgeist (film series). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Zeitgeist (film series), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Zeitgeist movement SPA censoring the article. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Unesco2015 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Zeitgeist (film series). 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notification

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unesco2015. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]