Welcome!
Hello, Sixit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -
Ahunt (
talk)
19:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Baphomet. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
16:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Baphomet, you may be
blocked from editing.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Baphomet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
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. Thank you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
16:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
18:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Sixit ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The default action for a 3RR violation is a block. Because it is common, it's easy to forget that NPOV is immune to 3RR, much like U.S. state laws are superseded by the U.S. Constitution. This is an NPOV issue. Here, the word "falsely" introduces bias that, while debated by many yet not all scholars, is still conjecture. There's proof the Templars were accused. They were found guilty. Did the Templars do what they were accused of? No one knows for certain. Claiming that the accusations are false draws a conclusion in only one direction. That is bias, not fact. I am disinterested in whether the Templars did or did not do what they were accused of. I was simply trying to keep the article from being even more biased than it already is. If the block is to remain, I respectfully ask that the page be protected. Thank you for your consideration. Sixit ( talk) 18:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:NPOV is not an exemption from WP:3RR - see WP:3RRNO. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
Welcome!
Hello, Sixit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -
Ahunt (
talk)
19:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Baphomet. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
16:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Baphomet, you may be
blocked from editing.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Baphomet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
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. Thank you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
16:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
18:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Sixit ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The default action for a 3RR violation is a block. Because it is common, it's easy to forget that NPOV is immune to 3RR, much like U.S. state laws are superseded by the U.S. Constitution. This is an NPOV issue. Here, the word "falsely" introduces bias that, while debated by many yet not all scholars, is still conjecture. There's proof the Templars were accused. They were found guilty. Did the Templars do what they were accused of? No one knows for certain. Claiming that the accusations are false draws a conclusion in only one direction. That is bias, not fact. I am disinterested in whether the Templars did or did not do what they were accused of. I was simply trying to keep the article from being even more biased than it already is. If the block is to remain, I respectfully ask that the page be protected. Thank you for your consideration. Sixit ( talk) 18:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:NPOV is not an exemption from WP:3RR - see WP:3RRNO. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
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.