User talk:76.201.60.184

"here for years"

Just because something has been on a page for years means nothing. See Talk:Orion_(constellation)#Ancient_Egypt. The first citation, the Oxford Guide, does not discuss a connection between Orion and Osiris. The second source, Donald Alexander Mackenzie, is outdated and WP:FRINGE. The other two sources fail WP:Identifying reliable sources. A mistake made for years is still a mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the message right above this one, the only source for that material that is reliable does not support the material. The rest fail WP:Identifying reliable sources, and so are not reliable. And as I said before, see Talk:Orion_(constellation)#Ancient_Egypt. If you disagree with the consensus found there, you need to actually discuss matters there or stop reverting. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, Donald Alexander Mackenzie is outdated and WP:FRINGE, that source is NOT reliable. If you want to defend it, go to Talk:Orion_(constellation)#Ancient_Egypt and quit edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Identifying reliable sources and the consensus at Talk:Orion_(constellation)#Ancient_Egypt says that Donald Alexander Mackenzie is not reliable. Ignoring your messages only makes you look tendentious, and we do not welcome tendentious editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Orion (constellation) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We know you're on a static IP, which means you're on a computer and not a phone. You should be receiving these messages, and you should be perfectly capable of visiting the talk page instead of pretending you don't know you're being tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP editor pushing un-/poorly sourced fringe POV. Thank you.

Why your edits are being reverted

Wikipedia only cares about verifiability, not "truth". That means citing reliable academic sources without elaboration or interpretation. ...But you already know that, and just don't care, right? You've already been told that repeatedly back when you edit warred at Hayk as 66.214.143.68.

You are not helping the site with your badly-research fringe claims, and pretending you aren't getting these messages doesn't help you either. If you aren't interested in collaborating or editing neutrally, quit wasting everyone's and just get a blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Christian mysticism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.
This message also applies to your edits at Esoteric Christianity (really, anywhere on the site). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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.

Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Esoteric Christianity, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Orion (constellation) 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVAND, removing redundant and poorly sourced material is not vandalism as you accused here. Edit warring for a fringe perspective while refusing to discuss things does indicate that you are a WP:TEND and do not belong here. If this continues, someone may push for a community ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Users have read what you've written, and pointed out problems with it. You haven't responded to those problems, and instead only throw tantrums and edit war. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

---