User talk:Chopstickkitty

RE: Thanksgiving
Maybe they should've thanked the Indians, but they thanked God. Please don't change it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ==>The Britannica article which I was attempting to cite says that the Wampanoag and Pilgrims held a three day feast which is what the current Thanksgiving celebrated in the United States is modeled upon. If I hadn't been interrupted with the constant reverting I would have been able to make additional references. The Encyclopedia Britannica article also cites their sources. I don't know why one would consider the Encyclopedia Britannica a questionable source. It seems to me that within the Wikipedia article in question the Encyclopedia Britannica's description of the original feast has been conflated with the pilgrims's religious-based thanksgiving days of prayer, which seems to fall under the Wikipedia definition of 'synthesis.'


 * In striving for neutrality, I corrected in several places 'God' with 'their god' or 'one's god.' As I explained in my request for an unblock I did not edit any reference to 'God' if that appeared as a quote of a quote.


 * I have no idea if this is how to respond to your posting on my MyTalk page. Chopstickkitty (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can reply in this way, I can see what you're writing.
 * With respect to Britannica, the version I have simply says that the pilgrims shared the meal with the Wampanoag, not that they thanked them ( I do not have access to the ref that is currently given in the aricle).
 * We can discuss this tomorrow when you're able to post this on the article's talkpage (which is >here).
 * It could well be that after your explanations these (or similar) changes will be accepted. The important thing is to start discussing changes, ideally as soon as someone objects (Note that I was not the only one reverting your changes). Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
The recent edit you made to Thanksgiving (United States) has been reverted, as it appears to intentionally introduce incorrect information. Please do not continue to do this; such edits are considered vandalism. Thank you. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC) ==> I have no idea how to respond to you. I can't respond on your talk page which is what you seem to want. Chopstickkitty (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No. just stop. Doubtful offline-sources won't help. Go to talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'''Would you mind communicating with us??? ''' Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some grave misunderstandings.

The explanation you gave and the arguments you now bring forward is what you should have given on the article's talkpage or here as soon as you received the 2nd warning. Your defense that you did not know how to reply is moot - obviously, you found a way to reply when it was too late, e.g. to ask for an unblock.

When your block expires, you can leave your explanation on the article's talkpage and hear (e.g. read) what others might have to say about it. As an initial hint, it would serve you better if you didn't assume anything about other people's motivations or belief-systems. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

==> Moot? Unlike yourself, Edgar181 and the Administrator included guidance on how to reply to them in their responses. It would be helpful if you are going to revert someone's edits and leave comments on their MyTalk page to also let them know how to reply to you. I have spent several hours now trying to figure out how to do this and have no idea if I have done it properly. I will leave an explanation on the article's talkpage after the block is lifted.Chopstickkitty (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

==> I don't see where you have 'talk' as an option beside your name. 'fundandtrvl' has a 'talk' link (which does me no good since I can't seem to be able to write to him), other users have a 'talk' link but you don't.Chopstickkitty (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OH... ">haneʼ".
 * Usually, the second part of someone's signature is the "talk"... you'll find quite a few people who have something else written for that link... like "hit me" or "dreamland" or "blah" or whatever. And yeah, until tomorrow, you won't be able to write anywhere except for on your own talkpage (this one). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)