Weotherideas
Welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
September 2016
edit
Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that in this edit to Pederasty in ancient Greece, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I wrote "quotation" under edit summary.
Quotations cannot be used on Wikipedia, which is why the quote was removed.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weotherideas (talk • contribs) 8:41, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Of course quotes can be used, if properly cited as these were. I have undone your removal again. See Wikipedia:Quotations. And please read WP:MINOR. Restoring an edit that has already been removed is not a minor edit. Meters (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
THANK YOU!! I apparently was previously tricked into believing quotes were not used on Wikipedia. I apologize for the error! Although, I did look up the quote in Dawson's book Cities of the Gods. Only to find out that Dawson was referring to "egalitarian" as "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens." Meaning the cultural model in ancient Greece was based on equality in relationships. (Cities of the Gods, Dawson p.193)
Weotherideas (talk)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pederasty in ancient Greece. 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges.
You have removed this three times now. Per WP:BRD discuss this on the article's talk page. You claimed that hte first two removals were because you did not believe quotes were allowed in Wikipedia, but your third removal removed far more than the quote you believe was taken out of context. Take this to the talk page and get consensus or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Meters,
Thank you for you concern.
Please explain how removing an introduction to a quote, which was taken out of context is inappropriate?
I removed, "The influence of pederasty on Greek culture of these periods was so pervasive that it has been called...(quote by Dawson)"
The portion removed is the contributors narrative introducing a quote from Doyne Dawson, which is referring to "egalitarian" as "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens."
Meaning the cultural model in ancient Greece was based on equality in relationships. (Cities of the Gods, Communist Utopias in Greek Thought, Dawson p.193) .
I have offered the original source, and carefully extracted the minimum text possible, as not to disrupt any accurate contributions to the article.
Thank YouWeotherideas (talk)
- I don't know if the quote is correct. You claimed it was taken out of context, so I tagged it for verification and brought it up on the talk page. I didn't remove it because the first two times you removed it you did so using an invalid reason, and the third time you claimed it was of context but removed more material than was covered by that quote. At this point I don't know if I can trust what you are saying, and that is why I asked for verification. Until it is verified it should remain in the article. I asked you to discuss this on the article's talk page both on your talk page and in an edit summary. Instead you have reverted for the 4th time. Meters (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Meters- The book is easily found on the internet with proper research==Google Books. I have added the article to Pedophilia, since it is a subtopic of a preexisting article, feel free to add to the appropriate article. Weotherideas (talk)
- I've undone your redirect. You must discuss such things at article talk-pages, and obtain a clear consensus. Haploidavey (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pederasty in ancient Greece, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please discuss such drastic actions on the article's talk page first. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Focus and Learn, The two articles should be merged because the current article "Pedophilia" has very little under the paragraph "HISTORY" while the ancient form of pedophilia called "Pederasty" is not referring to the scientific name or adding to the current understanding by having a tangential article appearing unrelated. Please explain why this article on the history of pedophilia is somehow different from the already existing article on pedophilia lacking content in history. ThanksWeotherideas (talk)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Pederasty in ancient Greece, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Pederasty in ancient Greece, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Focus and Learn, The two articles should be merged because the current article "Pedophilia" has very little under the paragraph "HISTORY" while the ancient form of pedophilia called "Pederasty" is not referring to the scientific name or adding to the current understanding by having a tangential article appearing unrelated.------- Please explain why this article on the history of pedophilia is somehow different from the already existing article on pedophilia lacking content in history.------- Thank You, Weotherideas (talk)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Pederasty in ancient Greece. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ancient pedophilia is pedophilia. Apply history to the correct article, which was appropriately monitored and provides child warnings. THANK YOU Weotherideas (talk)
- Hello – I'm Katie, and I'm an administrator here at the English Wikipedia. Welcome, and I'm glad you're here. :-)
- I think you could be a valuable contributor, and I appreciate that you have a view you'd like considered. However, we have rules here, and one of those rules is that we discuss moves and big content changes with a larger audience. You haven't done that. Instead, you've been move-warring and edit-warring to get your way. That's no good, and this is your last warning before you're blocked from editing.
- I'm going to leave you a welcome message at the top of this page, since I see you didn't get one (and you should have). There are a lot of links there about various policies and so on, but the important thing is to realize that this is a collaborative project. We do not simply undo the things we don't like over and over again without discussing. It is your burden, as the proposer, to make your case at the article talk page. Sometimes that takes weeks or months, and sometimes you don't get your way, but that's the way we work together here.
- I hope you decide to stick around. We're not a bad bunch, though we have our issues like other places do. We have a real need for editors to work in the Classical areas, and I know you can help us out. Again, welcome! :-) Katietalk 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Katie,
Are you an administrator? I would like to know why there is no child warning on this article?? Additionally does Wikipedia take any responsibility for articles about criminal rape like PEDOPHILIA?
THANK YOU Weotherideas (talk)
- As I said in my first sentence, yes, I am an administrator. To answer your question, please see WP:CENSOR and WP:CHILDPRO. Katietalk 23:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.