Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cullen328 (talk | contribs) at 06:55, 9 April 2018 (→April 2018: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Da original Phoenicians Wuz Kangz 😤

Warning

Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear what edit war mate?

do you just go around giving warnings to wrong people?

i reverted a statement after a user by the name of Dimadick Vandalized an article and reverted a wrong statement without sourcing it or using the talk page.

which then he lied about the main article and reverted his wrong statement again on two articles.

but i don't see your warning on his page... now that doesn't seem right, does it?

look up this "edit war" before jumping into conclusion. WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WeWuzPhoenicians, you are invited to the Teahouse!

WeWuzPhoenicians, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Wikaviani. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please refrain from labeling the edits of others as vandalism. That is a personal attack. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear please do not accuse others of causing "edit wars" as that is a personal attack.

Please refrain from labeling the edits of others as vandalism, and try not to give warnings to wrong people without explaining why.

pay attention to the edits before jumping into conclusion, and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

1.Pay attention to your own actions.

• "Please refrain from labeling the edits of others as vandalism, and try not to give warnings to wrong people without explaining why."

2.This was not the first time you labeled the actions of another editor as vandalism. Which is a personal attack.

3.Also, you were edit warring and judging from your edits, you were continuing the same actions as an IP(which can be connected to Arabos).

4.Please refrain from making accusations(PA, vandalism) when clearly you know what you are doing. Continued personal attacks and/or edit warring will be reported.

• "Kansas Bear please do not accuse others of causing "edit wars" as that is a personal attack"

Revert #1, revert #2. That is edit warring.

As for your accusation of a "personal attack", report it to an Admin. I welcome the eyes of an Admin on Tiberius Julius Balbillus &Titus Julius Balbillus, where an IP did 2 reverts and you did the exact same 2 reverts. So you were edit warring on two articles!

• "keep this in mind while editing"

Keep in mind your edits mirrored an IP that is linked to Arabos(who is indef blocked). You would do well to take your own "advice".

Also, are you Arabos? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear First: removing a sourced info is vandalism, and removing a sourced info about someones ethnic background is ethnic vandalism.

Second: please explain how did i unjustly accuse anyone of vandalism?? clearly the two users that i mentioned Vandalized those articles by reverting unsourced statements , and also he accused the IP's that you've mentioned of "Vandalism", but weirdly i also don't see you giving warnings to him about "personal attacks"... and i don't know what i am doing wrong, i am just correcting articles that haven't been corrected, what are you accusing me of?

and i will also welcome an unbiased admin that can look up my edits and tell me that they are "vandalizing", while ignoring the people that reverted my edits.

and please do not accuse anyone of sock puppetry, take that as a second advice, and as an old time user yourself, i am pretty sure you know the rules of this site.

and no i am not "Arabos". WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and please do not accuse anyone of sock puppetry, take that as a second advice, and as an old time user yourself, i am pretty sure you know the rules of this site."

Since you are a "new user", I will assume you don't know the difference between an interrogative sentence and an accusative sentence. The interrogative has a question mark at the end.

• "First: removing a sourced info is vandalism, and removing a sourced info about someones ethnic background is ethnic vandalism."

1. On Titus Julius Balbillus;

• "was an Emesene Arab aristocrat from the Royal family of Emesa in Roman Syria who served as a priest of the cult of El-Gebal in Rome during the reigns of the Severan Roman emperors Lucius Septimius Severus, reign 193–211 and Caracalla, reign 211–217."

Is unsourced. So your statement of "sourced information" is incorrect.

2. On Tiberius Julius Balbillus;

• "was an Emesene Arab Aristocrat from the Royal family of Emesa in Roman Syria who served as a Priest of the cult of El-Gebal in Rome during the reigns of the Severan Roman emperors Lucius Septimius Severus reign 193-211 and Caracalla reign 211-217."

Sourced by The Emperor Elagabalus: Fact Or Fiction?, by Leonardo de Arrizabalaga y Prado, page xxiv, is unviewable. So you have no idea what it says. And page xxii, states Tiberius Julius Balbillus was a priest of Elagabal in Rome during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla.

So both articles do not have sources stating these individuals are Arab or from the Royal family of Emesa. So much for "sourced information".

• "...also he accused the IP's that you've mentioned of "Vandalism", but weirdly i also don't see you giving warnings to him about "personal attacks""

Considering that IP is indef blocked user, maybe you should take Ehsan iq a blanket or a sandwich.

Sorry for interupting your message, Wikaviani. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear i said that i am not Arabos, which means i answered your question, and yet i got blocked for "disruptive edits"...

the previous edit called both of them "Assyrian" and i only corrected it, both of them being "from the Royal family of Emesa" (while a wikilink is added for the main article) is a source or at least, closer to it, plus, i am not the one who put the statement that they are "from the Royal family of Emesa" i just replaced the "Assyrian" with "Arab", as that is closer to being correct, i know you people will keep ignoring this but is it correct to call these guys "Assyrian" and also not providing a source for it?, isn't reverting unsourced statements is wrong? or did Misplaced Pages laws just got changed all of the sudden... WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to provide a source for your edit at Gaius Julius Fabia Sampsiceramus III Silas and i gave you some advices for finding reliables sources. More, i sourced your edit at Julius Bassianus but you keep going on with your aggressive behavior and your "advices" to much more experienced users like Kansas Bear. Please note that you can not use the article about the Royal family of Emesa as a source (this goes against Misplaced Pages:NOTSOURCE), but you can select some sources from this article and use them in other articles (like Gaius Julius Fabia Sampsiceramus III Silas). Again, if you need help for your edit, just ask, i'll be glad to help you as much as i can, but stop seeing other users as enemies, this is not a constructive behavior and can lead you to a block.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:You're welcome, no problem for my message. I just checked the two articles you posted above, it seems quite clear that WeWuzPhoenicians and the IP are the same user : he got blocked 3 april and his account is 4 days old, sounds like a block evasion. I can report him to an admin who could check this issue more precisely.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani why don't you provide a source that he was "Assyrian"??, i only corrected it because the article states that both of them are "from the Royal family of Emesa", (wikilink for the main page is added) and i know it's hard but just try to click on the main article and try to find a single mention of any "Assyrians", i know that my edit has no source but the previous ones also didn't, again i only corrected it or just made it closer to the truth.

and if both of the edits has no source (mine and the previous one) who decides which one is correct?, i didn't remove a sourced info, but again "Assyrian" is just false, and who said Misplaced Pages was a good site for information? now that is a funny joke. WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikaviani (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani i will care eventually... (sarcasm) WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

False accusations of vandalism and persistent addition of unreferenced content are not acceptable. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen "disrupts progress toward improving an article"

"False accusations of vandalism and persistent addition of unreferenced content are not acceptable", now can you say that to (User: Dimadick, "Reverted after vandalism") comment??! WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

and yeah sure.

{{unblock|reason=i didn't do any of the things your accusing me of :) ~~~~}} WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You will need to format your unblock request properly, and another administrator will address it. Hint: Acknowledging your errors is a good start. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen {{unblock|reason=i corrected an unsourced statement that was attached via a wikilink to the main article, the statement also Contradicts the main article... i also reverted edits that reverted those unsourced statements, but in the end i was the one that got the warnings and the block... makes perfect sense. ~~~~}} WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Another administrator will have to deal with this. Hint: you are not addressing the reasons why you were blocked. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen your the one who blocked me mate... and i explained my actions and wondered why did i in the end get the warnings and the block, i replied to your accusations, and gave "reasons for being unblocked", the reason above is my reply, what do you want from me?. WeWuzPhoenicians (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not yet understand that it is unacceptable for you to falsely accuse other editors of vandalism, and to add unreferenced content. If you continue that type of behavior, you will be blocked over and over again. I suggest that you rethink your approach to editing if you hope to be successful on this project. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)