Ekimiheart

Regarding edits to Evolutionary educational psychology

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ekimiheart! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bebay\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Human nature

Thanks for trying to improve the article on Human nature. Do you know that if you hit the 'show preview' button, you can see a preview of your edits before you save them? It is even possible to check that links work, and then hit the back arrow to return to the page you are editing before you save the page properly. If you are able to improve pages with one edit rather than several edits, it sometimes makes it easier for other people to see exactly what you intended to do to the article. Of course, sometimes it just works best to make multiple edits - so there is no general rule here. Anarchia (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

You are repeatedly inserting the same change to the article Evolutionary psychology after it is being reverted by several ieditors. This is edit warring which is not allowed under our policies. When someone reverts your edit the right thing is to go to the talk page and start a discussion about how to improve the article collaboratively. If you keep reverting you can be blocked from editing. The relevant policies that you should read are: The policy about how we establish consensus, The protocol for how to deal with disagreements and disputes. Also note that if you make more than 3 reverts to the same article in a 24 hr period that is a breach of the Three Revert Rule which may result in your being to be blocked by an administrator. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have had to report you here for breaching the three revert rule and for failing to engage in constructive discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING MY CONTINUING RE-PLACEMENT AFTER CONTINUING REVERTS: I had been waiting for some time for a reason as to why my edits were being reverted. I didn't see this first message that just came today until just before the 24 Hour block. After seeing the awaited message-explanation (but, unfortunately, after a couple reverts that, given the continued absence of explanation, had become a habit) I quickly decided to cease making edits until I could apprise myself of what I should do ---the thought being to go to the talk page. Suddenly, the block came through.

COMMENTS SURROUNDING MY EDIT CHANGES: I should say that I didn't delete anything from the original article, I only added statements to the Overview that, as an evolutionary psychologist, I feel competent to make. It only seemed like common sense that, if someone had a problem with what I was saying (in the absence of any deletes on my part), they should have made clear what was their objection ---or limited their objection to one or another statement. A general revert without any clarification as to why "left me cold". (I admit to being inexperienced with Wikipedia, but I must now assume I must have been wrong in this "wait and see" approach. I felt someone owed me an explanation of what was logically wrong with what I had said, given, again, my lack of any delete).

A couple final points about the specific content ---I sent the page before it had been reverted to Frans DeWaal, who is, arguably, the leading primatologist in the world and who has written extensively about Evolutionary Psychology. He thought my comments were "very interesting".

Secondly, my comments were consistent with both the "revolutionary" aspect of Wikipedia; but also with the proper placement within an "Overview" section --the term directing one to go beyond mere description (as is the character of each opening section) to a deeper "putting it all into the larger perspective" approach. This is especially important for the new science given the intense confusion regarding its logical placement within the broader Natural Science category of Biology (i.e. as a branch of primatology). If there is no error of logic to each and every content statement within a non-soft science category, how can such statements be willy-nilly deleted without explanation? It seems like an odd requirement that I have to ferret out what was wrong when the burden should be on the one making the revert.

Why not require each submission to contain a statement as to what is the reason for its addition; and, correspondingly, require each person making a revert to make a simple statement (hopefully more than "I don't like it") as to why the feel a new addition had to be wholly extinguished. You folks have been doing this quite a while, so I assume I'm missing something. But, WHY NOT? (it's not so great a burden)

The 24 hour block is not such a big deal with me ---but I wrote this just to let someone know what was my thinking at the time --perhaps to be helpful in making things less cumbersome to someone who wants to do something constructive, but has little time to read through pages and pages of guidelines. Now that I understand that the burden is, oddly, on me (despite the lack of explanation of objection by anyone), I understand there are other methods of resolution than the Talk Page ---but, given the particular issues here, would you advise this or would you have an alternate suggestion? Ekimiheart (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you on the presumption that you will not continue to edit-war. This is not just a disagreement with a single editor; three other editors have reverted your edits. A section to discuss the issue has been started on the talk page of the article -- please make sure that at least some of the other editors agree that your edits are okay before making any attempt to re-add them. Looie496 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind consideration.