Jump to content

User talk:Sobek2000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

warning the three-revert rule

[edit]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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. Acolex2 (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not understand what your problem is. Your only argument for Cleopatra IV being Pharaoh was that 'she was deified'. I debunked this argument instantly and Chris Bennet's site you yourself quoted agrees with me - being included into dynastic cult did not make person rulling Pharaoh. Cleopatra IV was not Pharaoh and I explained to you why. I thought that's how it works - one side presnets argument, second person presnets their own argument. You presented none and produced one book that - incorrectly - presents Cleopatra IV as rulling queen, whereas Chris Bennet's site, Tara Sewell-Lasater, book about Ptolemaic deification you yourself had linked and Sally Ann Ashton's book do not list her as queen regnant. Why is this so hard for you to understand you are in wrong?
When you brougt other queens who were also not included in protocols, I did agree with you and I explained that we can discuss their status - however there is nothing to discuss in case of Cleopatra IV. Your failed provide any argument except 'deification' which - as I said 100 times - does not make person a Pharaoh. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Please see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally, it is not a sound argument to point to what another article does as justification alone. Remsense ‥  14:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Vizier (Ancient Egypt) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬📝) 21:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'not constructive'? I added names and sources. What more should I do? Sobek2000 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Hi Sobek2000! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Remsense ‥  20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Please self-revert and start a talk page discussion to establish consensus with Piccco. Remsense ‥  20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did start talk with Piccco, however I do think it is they who dispute my content, so they should reach to me first. As I wrote, I am free to correct whatever I have to. I think it is highly disrepsctful that someone reverts ALL changes other person did and all their argument is that author is 'new to wikipedia', when this person gave their time. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Cleopatra) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]