User talk:Philogik

Welcome!

Hello, Philogik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Fredwerner 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sociotype, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I translate from the wikipedia french page. --Philogik (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The page you created is a bit of a mess. I won't revert again, but you may want to consider doing it and take the page to draft space (please see WP:DRAFTS) and work on it until it's ready. It is currently a page but also misidentified as a category, it's missing references, and it still has a bit of French in it. Ifnord (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop recreating this broken article. Again, it was back to being misidentified as a category. Please work on it as a draft; I created one for you using your content at Draft:Sociotype. Ifnord (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philogik, both Ifnord and I have raised concerns about the content that you keep adding to Sociotype. At this point you are edit warring by ignoring our suggestions, which can result in you being blocked losing your editing privileges. You've also repeatedly accused me of vandalism, which is both incorrect and extremely rude (for more on what is and isn't vandalism, see WP:VANDAL). If you would like to argue for your edits the correct way, start a discussion at Talk:Sociotype and we can discuss the matter civilly. For more information on English Wikipedia's etiquette, see WP:BRD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This my second warning to you. Even others user do the same behavior thant, it's still considering vandalism. Next time, I would ask for Community sanctions. RULE IS : if you don't agree, you have just to creat a topic in the Talk page of the article. --Philogik (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, two separate editors have disagreed with your bold edit away from the preexisting implicit consensus. While your original attempt to create an article is welcomed, the burden on proof is currently on you to convince other editors that your changes should be implemented. If you want to raise the issue on the talk page please be my guest, that would be a more appropriate place for the discussion if you want to discuss the article's content. And seriously, do us both a favor, read WP:VANDAL, and stop calling me a vandal. It makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ::::: see my answer before, no change --Philogik (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Sociotype

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia for edit warring. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 12:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Philogik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This a dispute who should resolve in the Talk of the article. I had to undo 3 times vandalism from user who's been warning few time to open a discussion, but they never proceed to the request, prefering delete the article content. The is no reason to the bloc. Avvording to wikipedia policie Blocks should not be used: to retaliate, to disparage, to punish or if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Philogik (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You weren't undoing vandalism, you were edit-warring. You are correct, the dispute should be resolved on the article's talk page. With you prevented from further edit-warring, that discussion can now take place. Yamla (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, I wasn't doing edit-warring, this article is totally fine for pushishing. Then, is people want to increase it, they can and also use the Talk page. You have decline but in other hand you I agree the block should not happens, but instead the using the article Talk. So I deeply desagree with the decision. --Philogik (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]