User talk:CanCanqr1989

On Reliable Sources
Hey, we have a lot of policies here on Wikipedia that can be a bit tricky to get up to speed on, but probably a good place to start is WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, and medieval monks just aren't reliable sources. If we want to discuss medieval monks in an article, that needs to be in a way that clearly marks down the kind of source they are, not just popped into the article in a way that could confuse a reader into thinking they're reading a reliable source.

And I didn't say that Esau is a fictional character. I said that nobody today buys the idea that Esau is the ancestor of the Franks. In the Bible, Esau is the ancestor of the Edomites, who lived to the south of Israel, not in Europe. In Judaism, the term "Edom" gets used for Christianity, but that doesn't mean Jews think that Christians were literally descended from Esau. In modern scholarship, yes, all the main characters in Genesis are usually treated as fictional. Alephb (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Your recent editing history at Canaan (son of Ham) 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alephb (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2017 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Alephb (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblocked
A CheckUser has told me that you are unlikely to be and consequently I have unblocked you. Favonian (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)