User talk:Bolandista

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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 without further notice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * What nonsense! I asked for and failed to get any discussion. Your consensus seems to be "We are right, go away". # Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Edit warring is your tactic. I made the change after no correspondence was forth-coming. You took the decision to remove my entry after you failed to try to achieve consensus in the discussion I was pleased to partake in. So you failed in every way to engage in reasoned argument. I will go for protection as you suggest. Bolandista (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggested text has no support from any other editors. It is clearly against consensus, and should not be included in the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point out where I am in error - let us start a discussion based on the page I posted. Bolandista (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the person seeking to add material to the article, it is your responsibility to convince other editors that it should be included. You have not done so - in fact, all other editors have opposed your suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So rather than discuss the proposed changes, you believe by saying no one agrees, that's consensus through discussion. Come off it. Just say it, you are not interested in justifiable content only smearing Sitchin. That is the only honest position you have. I, however, can verify all my material by reference to the original text - can you? Bolandista (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no particular interest in the content - I took action based on your behaviour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you have an interest in the content, otherwise you would not have changed my truthful content back to the slander that was there before. However, you may be able to help me, if you would, please. What, in this context, is an R(equest)F(or)C(hange)? Why is it used? How are they decided? Bolandista (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read up on how Wikipedia works, using the links in the Welcome message above. An RFC is a request for comment, by others not involved in a content dispute.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username DVdm. I noticed you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide verification for your edit. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! Wikipedia articles are written by people like you and me, and we care a lot about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please help us make it better. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure as an editor with so much time in here on Wikipedia you will understand the technical aspects of your message but I'm afraid you have lost me. What do you mean by a verification for my edit? What have you removed? Bolandista (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With (and, , , , ,  and ) you repeatedly added unsourced content and you removed references to existing sources — see our policy about wp:references, wp:reliable sources and wp:verifiability. I removed the unsourced content and restored the removed sources with , and gave the warning on your talk page here above. Please read the articles about our policies regarding these matters. Cheers and happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first(Read that, did what it suggests). 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. Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)