User talk:It is Theory

September 2020
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Ramses II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing and continuing to insert unsourced commentary in articles in spite of being warned in the past. If you keep being reverted, it's best to explain your changes on the talk page to gain consensus for them, but you are not doing so; instead you are creating clean-up work for others. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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) 08:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You are such a liar. I didn't violate any rules and policies of Wikipedia actually you did it. This time I even didn't remove any sourced material. I removed one line that source of reference was not given. I added facts and next time I will add source of reference as well with same facts. You commented that I didn't mention source, but don't behave as a child as you don't know that many content in Wikipedia are without source or from unauthentic sources and even in that article as well.

Reply me!! Where did violates rules and policies???


 * For one thing, you violated the No personal attacks policy above, and in this talk page edit.
 * Your repeated addition of unsourced and dubious claims to the Ramses II article is a violation of the Edit warring policy and the Disruptive editing guideline.
 * Your failure to gain consensus for your changes on talk pages, after you were reverted multiple times for your changes, is a violation of the policy Consensus and the best practice described in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
 * Another personal attack will result in an extension of your block. If you want to be unblocked, follow the instructions in the block message above, after you have read and understood the policies linked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My last content edition was not personal attack even though administrator has censored all historical info against that pharaoh, I just mentioned another research related to the cause of death of that pharaoh. Next times I will mention postmortem report with proper citation and source link. But you know well that many info in that article was without citation especially a line that I deleted. As you said about dubious, you can check as well many info in that article are just doubtful, but you didn't blocked them. That's called biasness. People like you can never censored youtube channel. I may make video on this....


 * If you are referring to Maurice Bucaille's claims, well, save yourself the trouble. Bucaille's works are widely considered WP:FRINGE at best, as he was strongly biased towards anything that, in his eyes, could validate the quranic/biblical narrative, in this case the crossing of the Red Sea which is considered fictitious/allegoric by mainstream scholars. And Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Khruner (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Whats wrong with you Khruner??. You guys are extremely biased trying to hide another research and facts. I just mentioned another research related to the cause of death due to the drowning in the sea. I have right to write any research. Last time, I didn't remove any other research related to death. I just mentioned another research. You guys are such a liar that your duel liar face can clearly be seen by anyone. You guys are exposed. That article was full of biased and fake information. You guys blocked me this time is totally unjust. I also edit another article, but this never happened to me. On this article you guys are trying to stop me. I will never. I may start to take further steps like to complain to Wikipedia administrator and may expose you guys on Youtube on worldwide. I will be back with more energy. Currently I am waiting for blocked expiry date.....


 * You were warned about personal attacks. The above name-calling, and your suggestion that you will continue as before being blocked, just extended your block to indefinite. Feel free to appeal your block following the instructions in the block message above. Also see Civility. Cool off for a day or two, then come back and engage in civil discourse as long as you have access to this talk page. That access can also be revoked depending on how you proceed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to the policies I listed previously, you might also want to review No original research. Wikipedia cannot publish your own research. Whatever is written in Wikipedia must be attributed to reliable published sources. If you want to reference your own research, get it published first in an established and trusted journal, and then suggest a citation on the article talk page (in keeping with our conflict-of-interest guideline that says you can't cite yourself in articles) so others can evaluate it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You again spoke falsely. That was an authentic research conducted by an another group of scientists. You guys are afraid of truth. As you talked about reliable published sources, but everyone know that whole Wikipedia is full of unreliable and reliable sources. In every research and theory, there are always some people who disagree. For example in the field of science, there is an disagreement between Newton gravity, Einstein gravity and quantum gravity. But no one has censored any of these research and theory. Everyone has right to present theory and research.

Unblock me!!. I am also active in another pages, but no one has ever blocked me. I may write on another published page instead of this related to the research. Me protesting against the unjust censorship.


 * The fact remains that so far you have provided zero reliable sources for your assertions. You also should add WP:UNDUE to your reading list. Another policy if you want to edit here.
 * To be unblocked, you cannot appeal to me. You must follow the instructions in your block notice, so that another admin can evaluate it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Because you don't like facts thats why you keep claiming unreliable source. The information written in that article was such a fake as written that teeth infection caused him to die. lol seriously. Thats never caused death. I have even serious medical issue on my mouth and teeth. But I am living active life. If he has such a serious issue than why he didn't get rid of that infected teeth. After than it is written on that page "death by infection, although this cannot be determined with certainty". Then why did he wrote uncertain research. And Why then I am not allow to write.

Hey unblock me. Whats wrong with you.


 * As has been told to you already, follow the instructions in your block message. Reading comprehension is important here. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)