User talk:Usvruefktpi

A summary of important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
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).
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.
Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert changes to a page more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not delete other's comments, as you did here. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry didn't notice that it was edit conf--Usvruefktpi (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Origins of Abrahamic religions

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Origins of Abrahamic religions. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Abrahamic religions. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Abrahamic religions – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Origins of Abrahamic religions, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Origins of Abrahamic religions, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. There's already a section in the Abrahamic religions article about the origins. Why do we need a separate article? —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Abrahamic religions 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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

it is an unlawful block by a spqm unblock is requested 24-hour i did nothing wrong Usvruefktpi (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Ian unblocked on their own, close the unblock request. -- GB fan 11:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam had nothing to do with it. You were warned about edit warring three times by three different editors, and you kept trying to downplay the role Judaism has as an Abrahamic religion, as well as continuing to remove any references to Asia (even when when the article was distinguishing the Abrahamic religions from East Asian religions). I have unblocked you because you have only technically reached 3rr -- however, you have been reverted several times by different users because your edits show a lack of basic understanding of the topic or even geography. Trying different edits with the same clear goal to avoid directly reverting still violates the spirit of WP:EW. Another admin might have just left you blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is not true don't believes him he is a liar

could someone please remove his admin rights?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lying? What about? It's obvious with a mere glance at the history for the Abrahamic religions article that your edits were reverted several times. Going through, we can see that you:

...In addition to you making a variety of other edits against consensus. If they weren't against consensus, they wouldn't have been undone. I definitely wasn't lying there.

It's also clear by looking at the history for your talk page that three editors warning you about edit warring as well. I wasn't lying about that, either.

Don't call someone a liar unless you have evidence. Not only is that considered lying, it's regarded as a personal attack.

Again, if you keep making the same kind of edits (even if they are not identical), you can still be blocked for edit warring. That's the spirit of the rules against edit warring, even if you've been tip-toeing around the letter of those rules by not making direct reverts. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC

i am not talking about this i meant accusing me of WP:EW which is not true so yes it is a lie--Usvruefktpi (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted several times, and yet you kept trying to make the same sort of edits. If you don't know how that fails WP:EW, then maybe I shouldn't've unblocked you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am not asking you to do anything posr i am asking for some admin to remove your admin rights or block you--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what grounds? You were blocked for edit warring, I unblocked you on a technicality even though you've clearly failed to understand that you were, as far as multiple users were concerned, edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not WP:EW that is just your POV it does not mean it is true because it isn't--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: If someone makes an edit which is reverted, and they make similar edits which are reverted by multiple users several times -- that is edit warring. If you are not capable of understanding that, perhaps you should find something less strenuous to do with your time. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you should be blocked Ian.thomson can someone please block Ian.thomson help?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You being ungrateful for me looking for the technicality to unblock you is no reason to block me. You edit warring is no reason to block me. You being incapable of understanding your own actions is no reason to block me. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help remove admin rights

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

can someone please block Ian.thomson help? i am asking for some admin to remove his admin rights or block him --Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only possibility for a block here is if I point out that this IP address was only active while you were blocked, has quit responding to the messages I've left it since you've logged in, and was only carrying out your edits (including calling an edit I made vandalism, much in line with your recent temper tantrums). Don't bother logging out and responding to those messages now, everything already falls under WP:DUCK. You've provided no reason for me to be blocked, and done nothing but make me think that unblocking you was a mistake.

Are you really, really, sure you want blocks to get involved again? WP:DROPIT. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes i do!--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to block Ian.thomson over. Even if the block that Ian made was a bad block (which I have not looked at), that is not a reason to block someone. I would suggest you drop this matter and edit. -- GB fan 10:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can someone at least remove his admin rights?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only group that can possibly remove admin rights is WP:ARBCOM and I would not post this there as they will not act on it -- GB fan 10:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they will not act on what?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) did you see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents[reply]

They will not remove Ian's admin rights. Yes I have seen that, have you read the responses that indicate Ian did nothing wrong? -- GB fan 11:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes i did but why they will not remove Ian's admin rights?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He did nothing egregiously against policy. You might not like what he did, but he did not violate policy. As you can see on WP:ANI, others agree with that assessment. But they do seem to agree that you are being disruptive. It is likely that you will be blocked if you pursue this. DMacks (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Removing or altering other people's comments at ANI is likely to result in an instant block from any one of the many admins trying to watch the page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it was edit conflict it happen a lot--Usvruefktpi (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to ANI

You really need to stop. Nothing good for you is going to come of continuing that thread. It is closed leave it. If you believe that Ian's admin privileges should be removed tske it to the correct forum, WP:ARBCOM. There is nothing any administrator can do. -- GB fan 11:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say above that your disruption of WP:ANI "was edit conflict it happens a lot"? What, all these were caused by edit conflicts: [1][2][3][4][5], really? But I see talkpage access has now been removed. You'll have to tell the Unblock Ticket Request System it was all edit conflicts. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

-- GB fan 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]