User talk:Plausy

November 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Book of Mormon. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. DMacks (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit warring where other parties are attempting to negate a prevailing talkpage consensus

There is no "prevailing Talk Page consensus" at Book of Mormon. Editor has made no real effort to build a consensus and editor is alone in his/her opinion. No other editor has accepted his/her argument. --Taivo (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Plausy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Book of Mormon does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.

Jeepday (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

there's a lone voice seeking to uphold a fringe theory against others on the talkpage discussion. How's it 'edit warring' to contribute to that discussion and take editing actions in pursuance of known academic consensus? And when did considerations 'outside academic credibility' start to influence decisions on categorisation?Plausy (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There doesn't seem to be anything inappropriate about this block, or any grounds on which I would be right to overturn it. If you don't understand what edit warring is, or why your edits were not appropriate, then it's likely that you would make similar edits if unblocked, so I wouldn't be justified in unblocking you. Please carefully read WP:EW and WP:NPOV while you are waiting for your 24-hour block to expire. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:22, 8 November 2012 (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.

Hello, Plausy, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. It appears you are editing as User:Sciot during your block. This is not allowed. 72Dino (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

It is clear that Plausy is using the entity User:Sciot for the purpose of block evasion at Talk:Book of Mormon. --Taivo (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plausy. 72Dino (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2012 (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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. DMacks (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note[edit]

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, which people use to get reliable information. Your plan, to use Wikipedia to let the world know that Mormons are wrong, just isn't going to work. It won't work because Wikipedia has a shared set of rules, and thousands of people who all follow them. Someone will always remove edits you make that don't follow those rules. If your main goal is to help build the encyclopedia, you're going to learn to follow the rules. If your main goal is to tell the world about why Mormons are wrong, the right place to do that is on your own web site or blog. Notice that this isn't about whether Mormons are right or not- of course they aren't. But that doesn't mean their books are now 'fiction.' Your mission is only to put the Book of Mormon in the 'fiction' category, and not the Bible or the Upanishads or the Quran, so you're clearly on an anti-Mormon mission, and there isn't room for that here. We're trying to get some useful work done. It isn't hard to block you or revert you- it just takes one button-click- and there are many people reviewing every edit you make. So your current course of action is wasting your time and energy, and won't ever be successful. While you're blocked, you should think about whether Wikipedia's mission is one that you share. If it is, you're welcome here- come back, when your block expires, and make good edits to other subjects, subjects that don't make you so angry. I've often thought that our Puppy article could be expanded to be much more informative than it is. List of Irish cheeses also still needs work- there are Irish cheeses that no one has written articles about yet. You could be a valuable and useful contributor. But if you keep up this rather silly mission, then you will certainly be indefinitely blocked, and your desired edits still won't be in the encyclopedia... so what was the point of the time you spent on this? Use this one-week block to decide whether Wikipedia is a web site you want to be part of or not, and it'll be okay either way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended[edit]

Because you are still avoiding this block by logging out to edit, I have extended the block to an indefinite one. You will not be unblocked unless a time comes when you decide you want to follow Wikipedia's rules, and can explain clearly how you are going to do that in an unblock request. Any other accounts you use will be immediately blocked and their contributions reverted. This has gone on long enough. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]