User talk:Aleksig6: Difference between revisions

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Aleksig6. -- Avi (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user page of User:Aleksig6 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not myspace / a hosting service

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or here.

Please consider editing your user page to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Newman Luke (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to use my personal user page to summarize imformation about the articles I was interested in and to which I wanted to contribute.
Howerver, I have realized that Judasim section of Wikipedia has been overtaken by persons, promoting very particular and biased point of view on many topics, while suppressing and discoraging other users to contribute. This section of wikipedia is not neutral, neither it is opened to correction of the critical mistakes (see the Ark article), and does not represent a form of Judaism that is based on Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses).
As I was told by some users that the "Wikipedia is not myspace / a hosting service", so am I would like to say - A Wikipedia is not an Orthodox Synagogue or a Shul!!!

Traditional view must be represented, no question about that! But it is simply unforgivable and heretical to omit and distort the meaning of the original text (the Law of Moses) !!! Aleksig6 (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue to take up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism, but it doesn't affect your use of your userpage.

Thanks for the advice, and I will definitely do so if I will find enough time to do it. Not all people, you know, spend all day making corrections to wikipedia ;)Aleksig6 (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is for information of use to constructing an encyclopedia, primarily for basic information about you, it is not a 100% personal space. If you want to summarise information, summarise it. Presenting it as one long essay is stretching the plausibility of your claim to breaking point. For example, even if you genuinely have nowhere else for collecting this information, why on earth would you write out the 10 commandments in detail, rather than just link to mechon mamre or biblegateway.com , or some other bible hosting site - you could even just use {{bibleverse||Exodus|34:10-28|}}, which produces Exodus 34:10–28 - so why write it out in full? Newman Luke (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to contribute and I was preparing material: its just easier to keep it all here due to wiki formating code. I'm new to wikipedia and I was under the impression that there is nothing wrong with that.... Aleksig6 (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like that? That to me looks like an essay. Why have you quoted and carefully formatted in table form an entire chunk of the bible? If you were genuinely only keeping it for reference, you'd only need to mention the verse number, not the entire content. Also, and this is important, put your explanation on the MFD page, not here - that's the only way you'll stop the page being deleted. Newman Luke (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tell you this but our guidelines on External links say we should not include "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" I've reverted you because of this. There's a big learning curve here, and after 130,000 edits I'm still on it! Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you review WP:ELNO. It outlines why certain URLs are not suitable for the "External links" section. Your links fall in that category. Please assist Wikipedia by expanding encyclopedia articles, but not by adding links to your blog. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Your repetitive additions of blog links are disruptive. Please stop. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Shabbat 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  ... discospinster _talk 01:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Aleksig6 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aleksig6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked unfairly for trying to add a link to my artcile. I was told the blogs are not allowed so I put my article on stand-alone and dedicated website (Google Sites) Why have I been blocked?

Decline reason:

Actually, you're blocked for edit warring. However, we do not get to link to our own websites on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aleksig6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to dispute Wikipedia Policy. Are you saying that my article needs to be published on paper before I can cite it on the Wiki Pages? What century are you living in? I would like to formally notify you that I will appeal all and every attempt to continue blocking me for no reason and without finding out who I am and what my article is about.

Decline reason:

You seem to have failed to grasp the point that you were not blocked for trying to add a link to your blog post: you were blocked for edit-warring, as you have already been told more than once. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• Although it is not the reason for the block, I will try to clarify for you some points regarding linking to your page. It would make no sense at all to accept just anything as a source: we require reliable sources. I could write anything I like about anything, and post it to a blog. It would be ridiculous to have a policy that just because I have written something and posted it to a blog, that means I can use it as a source for a Wikipedia article: it would not be a reliable source. Instead of posting it to a blog, I could but a domain name and set up my own web site to post it to. it would not magically become a more reliable source because I did that. I could get it printed, and that would not make it suddenly become a reliable source. Something written by some insignificant member of the public is not a reliable source, no matter where or how it is published. You may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. But in any case, even if you were an acknowledged expert in the field, and had written a respected standard reference about the subject, linking to your own source would be unhelpful, as you would have a conflict of interest, and would not be an impartial judge of the value of your own work. I hope that explanation will help you understand why your links are unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've send you a response via private email because I did not know I had to login to override IP ban... Anyway, I have submitted a request to an Arbitration Committee. All of you clearly acted in bad faith because you did not even try to resolve it peacefully and reasonably. I am a recognized expert on the subject. Are you saying that I have to publish my article in a journal and then have one of my followers to add a link and it would be acceptable? You just want me to jump through the hoops, are you? You don't give a s%$# about knowledge or readers of this God's forsaken website. This is why I call this site WickedPedia because it spreads wickedness and misinformation. And no, I do not think that adding my own link in any way "would be unhelpful, as you would have a conflict of interest, and would not be an impartial judge of the value of your own work." This is just your opinion. My expertise and research can benefit people and you are denying them that. Good job guys. Aleksig6 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied below to your email, before noticing this message. However, here are answers to a couple of things you said here and not in the email. Accusing others of acting in bad faith without good reason is inadvisable. Naturally you believe that your "expertise and research can benefit people", but you have failed to grasp the point that in making that judgement you are not an unbiased observer. We all think our own opinions are right. (Incidentally, I am not sure how anyone can be "dragged into" an edit war: nobody forced you to keep making the same edit.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aleksig6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was dragged into Edit Warring by that user reverting my changes. It was not my intention. Please unblock. Arbitration Committee has been notified of the situation.

Decline reason:

No valid reason given for unblock, and I doubt the Arb Committee is going to be interested in a simple case of edit warring.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

That user? On Activities prohibited on Shabbat I count 4 reversions by 3 users (5 and 4, including me). Same for Shabbat. You were warned. You could have walked away. It's WP:NOTTHEM. Also, the odds that ArbCom will respond are nil. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, I am not "saying that if [you] would publish [your] article in a journal and then have one of [your] followers to add a link that would be acceptable". In fact, that would be meatpuppetry, and sufficient grounds for both of you to be blocked.
2. You say that your "only goal is to spread knowledge (not to promote [your]self or [your] blog e.t.c.)". However, what you are doing is trying to spread knowledge of what you personally regard as the truth, in full knowledge of the fact that there are many who disagree. that is to say that you are trying to promote your views.
3. You say that I am doing a huge disservice to Wikipedia readers, and that because of people like me you call it WickedPedia. Well, there are differing views as to what is a disservice. I also suggest that you may like to consider whether the word "wicked" is appropriate for someone who is acting in good faith, but with whose actions you personally disagree. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what ArbCom will say. Until then I will continue to appeal. Sorry. You deserve to waste your time with me just like you wasted my time. Good luck. Aleksig6 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, out of curiosity, I would like to know WHO EXACTLY AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS can post a link to my article. Please indulge me with your delussions :))) Aleksig6 (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that I am wasting my time, and that none of this is getting through to you. As to your second request, somebody who isn't involved can post a link to a reliable source, which your "article" isn't. Please note that we do block sockpuppets who edit war in material and are clearly single-purpose accounts evading blocks. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from your first link it says I can WP:SELFPUB, as I am the expert in the field. I do not know WP policies well but I am sure in my case exception can and should be made. As of your second link, once again I am an expert and I can provide you will my whole body of work, which is "significant" and "widely accepted and published", so again on what ground I do not qualify as a "reliable source"? Aleksig6 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the bio on the blog you linked to, it does not seems you are any kind of recognized expert. And "As a Hebrew, I observe only the Pentateuch and live only by the Pentateuch, as I consider it the only Real Torah there is. Therefore I reject most of the Jewish traditions, customs and beliefs..." makes it seem you are on the fringe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews do not have a central authority, so as long as I follow Torah I am fine and "not on the fringe". You own policy says that you should include "minority opinions". Also, I am an expert on the Torah (Written Torah) to be specific, so I do not care nor do I want know anything about traditional Judaism. My article is not about that. Aleksig6 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Origamite: Slight correction - Aleksig6 wants to add links to his blog in external links sections so WP:ELNO is the appropriate guideline. "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Aleksig6, deliberately wasting other editors' time is seen as disruptive and will probably result in longer blocks. And your appeal to Arbcom is very misguided if you think they will side with you in any way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I qualify under WP notability policy. Its just no one written an article about me as most people who know me do not use Internet (Religious Jews). And yes, I represent a minority opinion, which is however allowed under "Reliable sources" and my article (IMHO) presented in a neutral format. My article is not even research. I simply state facts from the Torah to make points (not mine). Aleksig6 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm notable because I say I'm notable" doesn't work here. And see my post above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To a slowpoke like you I will say once more... Google Sites is a web hosting provider (see WP) and was setup as a stand-alone web page for a single purpose of hosting my article. Since I am an expert in the field, it was "written by a "recognized authority". Also, according to WP NOTABILITY on all points of General notability guideline. IF you need proof- tell me what you need and I will provide it to you. I simply do not know what would satisfy you. Aleksig6 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who do not accept your statements are not slowpokes, they are just less credulous of your self-serving statements than you would like. You've been told what Wikipedia requires (self-declarations of notability isn't it). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not get it. You are banning me so its YOUR responsibility to checkout my credentials. Go Google my name "Aleksandr Sigalov" and go visit my blog which is about to hit 1mil unique page views. Is that "notable" enough for you? Or perhaps you want a list of my works published in Journals and books? Whatever, man. Like I said - you do not want to play nice - you in for a good fight. I did not do anything wrong and was attacked for no reason. Aleksig6 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around. It's up to you to prove you are notable by Wikipedia standards. Googling your name turned up nothing of substance in terms of notability. I did find this which seems to indicate your need for increased attention. Please read or re-read our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time to do research for you or WP. Lets wait for ArbCom. Aleksig6 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question-what makes you and your translation any more reliable and expert than the "Etz Hayim" I consult every week? It was reviewed and published by the USCJ. It directly contradicts your "Pentateuch only" statement. Couldn't it be the expert, and you be on the fringe and not a "recognized authority"? That would make your article invalid under ELNO. I see that you have nothing written that would satisfy the WP:GNG. Anyway, this is a very short block, so I hope to not need to encounter you again. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am making Literal translation that will accurately and precisely reflect Hebrew Masoretic text and preserve sentence, orthography, structure and tone of the text. This has never been done before, except for YLT (which is close to what I am trying to do). Etz Hayim is coservative-reform Humash which is translated according to the movement bias, meaning that in many places textg intentionally mistranslated to fit their agenda. I am creating 100% bias-free and objective translation so people can read original text as it is. Does this answer your question? And the fact that you do not think I am GNG is your opinion. I want to wait for Arbitration Committee to say their word. Aleksig6 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that Arbcom does not make such determinations, right? They're going to politely tell you to go away and work with us lowly editors. And hopefully point you to WP:COI and WP:N. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I will have to resort to other options. Like I said, it can be nice or it can be ugly. It up to you "lowly editors". Aleksig6 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is my opinion? Here I thought it was a guideline. I am curious as to how you intend to translate "tzara'at" to maintain the original Hebrew. Also, what are your "other options"? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 21:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not yet to the book of Leviticus so I am still thinking, but I would probably translate it as "scourge" or "plague". Leprosy does not appear to be correct illness that is being described in the Torah. Main clue I think is a hand of Moses (Exodus 4:6, yado metsoraat kashaleg) and Miriam story Numbers 12:10. Also clues are in Exodus 23:28 and Deut 7:20 where it says et hatsirah, which is traditionally translated as "hornet" so perhaps tzara has something to do with stinging. Again, I am not a doctor so I would not know what would be the proper medical term. I will translate it idiomatically instead like I pointed out above "scourge" or "plague". Aleksig6 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, interesting. I knew that it didn't refer to Hanson's disease. Still, what are your "other options"? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of my "other options" is to wait for the response from the ArbCom. If my request will get rejected, I will simply edit "Shabbat" and a few other articles with direct statements from the Torah from my article. It is a huge pain in the ass to break my articles into neutral facts but I will do it just to prove the point. I believe you can't remove such edits, right? Meaning of'course, that they are inline with the WP policy. What do you think? Aleksig6 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can remove WP:SPAM, as you'd have to source the translation to your article. If the facts are truly neutral, however, there'd be no reason to. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of'course. I will use standard JPS translation or direct Hebrew quotes from the text. See, I am not being unreasonable. I just do not have time to do it so it would be much easier for me if you would allow my link. But whatever :) Aleksig6 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Have a nice day, and enjoy editing when your block ends! Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You too, bro.... Aleksig6 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Art Experience

• 09/2009 – Present. The Desert Tabernacle Blog. Utilizing new media to create a comprehensive study and illustrations of the Biblical Tabernacle (Mishkan). http://thedeserttabernacle.blogspot.com 760+ unique page views, 400+ posts, 1000 plus original art works.

• 01/2014 – Present. My Torah Commentary Blog. Utilizing new media to create a comprehensive commentary and literal translation of the Torah in English and Russian. http://mytorahcommentary.blogspot.com Please note that Russian translation is going to be first in the world.

Published Works

• 05/2012. Online Samaritan Pentateuch in Hebrew, English and Russian. First in the world English and Russian translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. First in the world free digitized edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch. https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/

• 09/2012 “The Corner Boards of the Tabernacle” article and illustrations. Published in Jewish Bible Quarterly journal, issue 40:3 July-September 2012. Republished on Amazon Kindle (ASIN B004QOASUI). Also published as a Google eBook.

• 09/2012 “Dimensions of the Court of the Tabernacle”. Google eBook.

• 10/2013 Illustrations of the Menorah and the High Priest for the article by Rev. Robert Hinckley called “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary”, published in LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology, Reformation 2013, Volume XXII, Number 4

• 03/2014 Illustrations of the Utensils of the Altar of Burnt Offering of the Tabernacle for the book “The Mystery of Tabernacle in the Story of Jesus”, Jeyoung Publishers, Korea.

YouTube I have a channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfczzfgthMuEXggIJ3EYuaA with about 180k views and 190 subscribers.

Other References My work has been republished all over the world in print and online. Its best to Google my name "Aleksandr Sigalov" to see other references of my work. For Example, "STEP Bible", "eSword" and "The Word" (free bible study software) uses my Samaritan Pentateuch and translation.

Sorry but your edits there are what we call original research. You'd need independent sources meeting WP:RS for them. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how what I said is OP. I provided the verses where it explicitly state what I said. Do not revert my edits.

You are welcome to edit it to your liking but I want it there Aleksig6 (talk)

No, it's original research. I also note that you have a problem with edit warring. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eg, where is your source for "all rituals in the Written Torah are centered around the Tabernacle and not Temple" - that's your own interpretation/observation. Or even "Interestingly, in the Written Torah(The Law of Moses) there is no commandment to build the Temple. Jerusalem or the Temple are never mentioned in the Written Torah." We also don't tell our readers what is interesting, see WP:EDITORIAL. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me where Temple is mentioned in the Written Torah, I would agree with you. Also, show me where rituals in the Written Torah ARE NOT centered around the Tabernacle? Show me where Jerusalem is mentioned? Please show me!!! This is a fact. This is not OR because you can't draw any other conclusions here. And if you do not like the word "interestingly", you can remove it. I can agree with this. Aleksig6 (talk)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Solomon's Temple‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Solomon's Temple. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

You need to find a secondary source that strings all that together - you cannot do it yourself; that is not allowed in Wikipedia per WP:OR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just quote the verses? Can you edit it but keep all the verses I stated. It is all there. Why do I need another source? Its a primary source already? Aleksig6 (talk)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Solomon's Temple. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{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.  Favonian (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Aleksig6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked unfairly. No one talked to me before removing my content. I was drawn into the edit war. Aleksig6 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was blocked unfairly. No one talked to me before removing my content. I was drawn into the edit war. [[User:Aleksig6|Aleksig6]] ([[User talk:Aleksig6#top|talk]]) 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked unfairly. No one talked to me before removing my content. I was drawn into the edit war. [[User:Aleksig6|Aleksig6]] ([[User talk:Aleksig6#top|talk]]) 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked unfairly. No one talked to me before removing my content. I was drawn into the edit war. [[User:Aleksig6|Aleksig6]] ([[User talk:Aleksig6#top|talk]]) 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I would say that this edit note calls for a much longer block, as does Aleksig6's continued pattern of edit-warring and lack of ownership of the problem above. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you, pig, must first learn how to talk to people first before removing my content and accusing me of OR. You are a scum of the earth. Aleksig6 (talk)