User talk:Transcendent28

Orcs and welcome
I see you're new here ....

I removed most of your new material in Orc (Middle-earth) because of the rule against "original research". However reasonable an inference may be, if the author did not say it explicitly, Wikipedia is not the place for conjectures of what various indirect clues might imply.

If, after looking at the rule, you reckon that it does not apply to your material, don't just restore it (that way lies edit war): bring it up on the article's discussion page. We have a jocular name for this process: the bold/revert/discuss cycle.

I hope this does not discourage you from further participation in the wonder that is Wikipedia. —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Uruk-hai, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Just because an article contains O/R is no excuse for introducing more Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Uruk-hai. 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. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:35, 25 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.

Discuss on the talk page
If you feel the information belongs on the article, you need to please discuss the material on the article's talk page. Simply hitting "Undo" when multiple editors are telling you the material does not belong is not going to keep the information there, it's just going to end up with you blocked from editing. Please discuss, instead of reverting. Thank you. - SudoGhost 16:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To elaborate: In your edit summary  you write, "If my quoted additions are OR you might as well delete the whole article."  The problem is not the references (though for my taste you have copied far too much of the original text rather than paraphrasing it more succinctly), but rather that you are using them to synthesize your own interpretation of what it means.  No one is denying that Tolkien talks about interbreeding men and orcs, but there is no indication in Tolkien's own writing that the Uruk-hai resulted (directly) from such breeding in the Third Age.  You are trying to build a case that they did, but that is exactly what WP:OR is talking about.  Cheers, -- Elphion (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No indication? Then why did Tolkien have the dead Uruk-hai using human gear in The Two towers? and why did Treebeard wonder about them being a result of crossing men and orcs? Then in his later posthumous notes, we see in Morgoth's ring, Myths transformed, that two kinds of hybrid were indeed formed, Men-Orcs and Orc-men. This seems far more than "No indication". It is a heavy implication that this is confirming the "hints" in The Two Towers that both Uruk-hai and Half-Orcs are crossbreeds. What ever else would he be talking about in this passage? It would not stand to reason that he meant anything else. I think heavy implications like this should count as more than simple "Orignal research" and pass into the world of fact, to all but the most unable of readers. I only stated that there were "hints" that the Uruk-hai were crossbreeds, not absolute certainty on the issue, so you are straw-man arguing with what I wrote. You just delete things because it gives you a thrill, admit it.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Edititing.
Please discuss your edits rather than just trying to force them through. The Uruk-hai at the Battle of the Hornburg were unique in their lack of fear of the sun, there is zero, absolutely zero evidence that this trait was shared by the original uruks from Mordor. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit under an |IP to make your POV seem to have more support. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  06:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Your recent editing history at Uruk-hai‎‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  07:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Uruk-hai.  Eye snore  Summer! (PC) 07:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alt-right. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  14:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you continue to edit war
you'll be reported. Use the talk page and if you don't get consensus drop it or go for dispute resolution. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles
Doug Weller talk 12:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just noting that as you have been told by another editor on my talk page, telling you that the alert does not imply that there are any issues to your contributions to date" does not constitute a threat to sanction you. You seem unaware of some of our policies and guidelines but you've taken my advice and stopped editwarring, which is good. Just carry on following our policies and guidelines and you've nothing to worry aout. Doug Weller  talk 12:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Doug Weller that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that discretionary sanctions covers behaviour, not just article edits. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice one. Please stop messaging me. I have no interest in power trippers. Transcendent28 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:White privilege are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit was not consistent with wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and bias, continued policy-violating edits will get you blocked from editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so you think because I think "White privilege" is a myth, that I'm racist? No. I have very good reasons for thinking that. I have no hatred for other races or ethnicity at all, only for extremely biased political pundits such as yourself. I am white and I am not at all privileged. If you think that is "racist", then you have a serious problem. My whole anger outburst was due to how extremely biased the "White privilege" page is. Just because someone may disagree with the entire premise of "White privilege" does not equal racism. Your thinking is absolutely illogical.Transcendent28 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you went out of your way to vandalise an article on white privilege and I think that act was racist. I cannot judge whether you yourself are racist, I only state that action was. You are free to request another admin review your block. I suggest you are unlikely to be unblocked without a wide-ranging topic ban, though. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not racist at all. I am against far-left politics. Whenever I read an article which is politically controversial, such as on topics of race or sex, I see them to be heavily swayed in the direction of a left wing viewpoint. I have tried to contribute politically in the past to other pages, but only got shouted down and deplatformed (blocked) by obvious political activists on this site. That sort of thing makes me angry. When I read the "White privilege" page, I didn't even bother to try and contribute to the discussion. I just vandalised it out of pure anger and the political bias on show. I realise my mistake now, and I shouldn't have acted in such a way. Basically I don't want to edit any more politically controversial pages...because my views are not mainstream and it's just not worth it for me. I didn't target the "White privilege" page for racist reasons...but for political reasons, if you can understand that. I believe in racial equality, equality of opportunity for all, but not equality of outcome. I believe that lack of equality in the west is due to money and wealth, NOT due to race and gender, as is often forced on us by the far-left. Once again, please see that I am not a racist at all, and consider lifting my block. I promise no more angry outbursts on pages like this, I'm finished with that side of wikipedia. Transcendent28 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not unblock you, but you are free to make an unblock request and another admin will review your block. I suggest specifying explicitly that you'll accept a topic ban, and listing the areas the topic ban would apply to. You aren't required to do this, it's just a suggestion. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just accept my apology? It's not like I'm going to do it again, and just get instantly blocked again. I've already explained what I did and why I'm sorry. For you to keep me on block looks like a personal vendetta from you.Transcendent28 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed and declined your unblock request. If you wish to be unblocked, the proper course of action is for you to make another unblock request and then another admin will review it. That's your path forward. It's not a personal vendetta from me. I don't help maintain the articles you've been editing. WP:GAB explains our unblocking process. --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for your help then, except for claiming my actions were "outright racist", which genuinely upset me, but thanks anyway.Transcendent28 (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What topics or articles do you intend to edit? I would want you to agree to a topic ban from articles dealing with politics or race/racial issues(broadly construed) to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I only edit pages very occasionally anyway, just the odd grammar correction or fact alteration, nothing big. I have edited all kinds of random topics in the past, mostly mythology, history and JRR Tolkien based subjects. I just want the freedom to change obvious mistakes I come across. You can ban me from "race/racial" issue pages if you want, but please don't ban me from all politics pages. That would be pointless. I'm not going to do any more disruption or antagonistic editing from now on. I just have to accept the bias that I come across, I'm not big enough to change anything which I would want to. This is why I'm sorry for my angry outburst. It was pointless. Transcendent28 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will leave this open for other administrators to look at, who might take action(and may do so without consulting me) but my view is unchanged as of now. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically you don't believe my apology? Do you think I would be disruptive again after taking all this time to say sorry to be unblocked? I thought the block of disruptive editors was "not supposed to be a punishment"? Having acknowledged that what I did was wrong, and told you I won't do it again, what more can I do?Transcendent28 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe your apology, but the community needs to be assured that the behavior that led to the block will not continue, and I believe the conditions I laid out will do that. I am leaving this open in case another administrator will do as you ask.  331dot (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And who is "The community" exactly? Is there a vote that takes place on who gets blocked or unblocked? I can't help feeling that my block is being kept in place by individual activists for political reasons. Is it because I have some conservative views? Is it because I did disruptive editing?....or because I specifically disrupted THAT sensitive page on White privilege? Would I have been blocked so permanently if I had disrupted the page about Penguins (for example)? I have said I am sorry and I promise I won't edit war or disrupt on Wikipedia again. You have my word on it, so does the community. I feel that keeping me blocked now is just for personal punishment only.Transcendent28 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"please don't ban me from all politics pages" Your unblock request specifies that you won't edit any politics pages. Which is it? --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant I wont get involved in controversial topics, I just want the ability to edit glaring errors if I see them, like grammatical errors. I won't be disrupting or arguing anymore. I'm finished with that.Transcendent28 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll want to edit your unblock request to make this clear, then. Right now, it implies you are willing to accept a topic ban around political issues, but you clearly aren't. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK yeah I see that. I've edited the wording in my request. Thanks.Transcendent28 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked with conditions stated above.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with an unblock with that topic ban in place. --Yamla (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, there really is no need to block me at all. I prmomise not to do any more edit wars or disruption. If I do it again you can block me forever, no questions asked. Just unblock me and forget this. Thanks.Transcendent28 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to unblock this user but forgot to actually lift the block. --Yamla (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will work. Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reprieve. I'll be on my best behaviour from now on.Transcendent28 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)