Kapture-N-Kill Commando
Please use sources for your contributions edit
Thanks for your edits to Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal extinction hypotheses. It is important that you cite sources for your additions, per WP:V. You seem knowledgeable about the topic, so no doubt you have access to recent sources that you can draw upon. In some instances you seem to be adding your own observations, which generally isn't allowed in Wikipedia. I'm afraid your contributions will be reverted if they aren't referenced. TimidGuy (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012 edit
Your recent editing history at Cro-Magnon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Incredible - telling another editor that their behavior and choice of words are very effeminate edit
This takes the cake - you've addressed another editor on their talk page saying "Dear Ma'am (I am assuming you are a female because your behavior and choice of words are very effeminate)." Carry on this way and you will not last long here. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Doug, you beat me to it: I just noticed that gem and came here for the same purpose, of warning the editor to not say ridiculous stuff like this. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Neanderthal extinction hypotheses. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kapture-N-Kill Commando (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been unjustly blocked from editing Wikipedia, and in the meanwhile two Wikipedia editors clearly acting in collaboration with each other (Fama Clamosa and Dougweller) are vandalizing Wikipedia by reverting edits I have made to the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal extinction hypothesis pages that were cited and unquestionably correct. They have also suggested adding information to Wikipedia which can be demonstrated as coming from unreliable sources. For these reasons I am requesting an unblock.
Decline reason:
You were warned explicitly against edit-warring, yet you chose to revert the other editors again on the Cro-Magnon article, thus violating the three-revert rule. Favonian (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Um, 2 editors reverting an editor doesn't prove that they are acting in collaboration, it's more likely that the article is on both editors' watchlist and that they both saw some bad edits and reverted them. I certainly wasn't acting in collaboration with anyone. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kapture-N-Kill Commando (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Edit warring" is no excuse to block someone who has repeatedly tried to defend and have rational discussion about the truth. I am requesting an unblock for the second time as my block was wholly unjustified.
Decline reason:
Edit warring is most certainly a valid reason for an edit-warring block. One more unblock request that doesn't acknowledge that and I will revoke your permission to edit your talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
- You reverted four times. You were warned about the three-revert rule before you made the fourth revert. You reverted anyway and were actively edit-warring on another article. You're calling those who disagree with you "vandals." That sort of activity will earn a block every time. Acroterion (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)