User talk:Mark Peres

This is my experience of wikipedia, so far.

I have created an account with the name Mark Peres, but my name is actually Mark Camilleri. It seemed that Mark Camilleri was already in use, so I opted to use Mark Peres instead which is an old moniker I use for online accounts.

I have edited the part of Naxxar's page on the etymology of the name. The previous part of the page was referenced by what seems to be a bot from an unreliable and non-scientific website which does not source its information. Instead, I replaced wiki's reference for a reference by Godfrey Wettinger, from his book on the etymology of Maltese place-names.

Different editors of wikipedia deleted my change and reverted to the old one. I have edited back my change since my reference is actually correct. May I also add that Godfrey Wettinger's reference is as of now, the only scientific case for the etymology of the name.

Upon editing back my change, I was banned for one day on the ground that I am involved in an edit war.

Soon after I was blocked indefinitely by a wiki bot on the grounds that I had created a new account called Naxxar Historian. This is not true and I wouldn't do such childish things, but I don't know how the wiki editors came to the conclusion that I opened a new account.

This is my first experience with wikipedia and it helped me understand further more why a lot of the information is unreliable. Bots seem to be gathering information from online websites which is then edited by wikipedia editors to fit a house style. However, there is a very limited way in which lay-users can contest the information with proven and reliable sources.

Mark Camilleri

Recent edits to Naxxar
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Naxxar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 46.166.190.167. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

'''REPLY TO ABOVE ''' My source is Godfrey Wettinger who is a professional historian, contrary to the fictional sources used originally. I am a certified historian and I am correcting mistakes which have been posted here by bots or dilettantes who have used online websites as their source (I am using scientific material). Please don't vandalise my edits again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Peres (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The information you stated in your response above does not describe a source that can be referenced nor verified at all. I could say that I'm referencing the master of the Universe and that this person is sitting right here and knows everything - would you believe me? Would you immediately assert that all of my edits are completely accurate and true given just that information? Of course you wouldn't. Sources and references must be able to be reviewed, scrutinized, and verified for authenticity and accuracy - they must meet the requirements listed on this guideline page. What you describe is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review these policies and guidelines and do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions - just message me here. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Your recent editing history at Naxxar 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Naxxar. 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:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Access to edit your user talk page during your block is so you can discuss the block or request an unblock only, and not for other purposes. Talk page access will be revoked if you make inappropriate edits to it and that don't involve the matters described. I hate being the bad guy here, but you cannot edit war like that, and you cannot disrupt Wikipedia to make a point...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion
Because of your recent attempt to evade your block by creating and using another account, you have violated Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. Your block is now indefinite.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A Checkuser investigation found no technical link between your account and the others listed in the sockpuppet investigation. However, CU cannot prove a negative; the most I can say is that your account does not appear to be using the same IP or device as the other accounts used. Yunshui 雲 水 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I am in no way saying that the claim of multiple account abuse is untrue - I am not able to say that, since CU cannot prove a negative. All I (or any other checkuser) can confirm is that the edits made from this account were made from a different IP and device to those made by (almost all of) the other listed accounts. Yunshui 雲 水 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.