User talk:Czypcamayoc

"Matt S." Has deleted my fully researched, cited, accurate and pertinent section titled "controversy on the grounds that it argues against the existence of the article itself. It does not; it questions the validity of assertions within that article, and does so justifiably. I am the only contributor to this article who has researched and cited their contributions in accordance with documented history and Andeanist scholarship. A lot of work went into researching and citing this; it should not be removed prejudicially. If "Matt S." favors the original assertions, he should provide them support and citations.

czypcamayoc

I have edited the article "Chakana" to qualify its categorical presentation as fact a highly questionable assertion: that the "chakana" design is an ancient and traditional motif in Andean culture and that it represents an identifiable symbology. This is not done to be mean-spirited; it is done to clarify and inform. In fact, the "chakana" appears to be a modern convention and to have few or no roots in pre-columbian cultures. This is something the reader may wish to know. If evidence to support the contention of the article as it read before this amendment exists, please present it here or within the text. Please do not reflexively revert valid modifications.

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Chakana, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chakana 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not the relevant talk page? From where I stand it is you, not I, who has gone to war. You have left the reader deceived. Good work.

(edit conflict) Unfortunately citations are the bread and butter of Wikipedia. Without them you cannot add your own research into an article because it is called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and is specifically prohibited. I hope you realise the underlying principle behind this rule. If everyone were free to add their own original stuff to this encyclopedia, and without expert and reliable published sources to back it up, Wikipedia would be full of unverifiable and basically worthless information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the article talkpage is this. If you want to discuss this further click on it and then press "save" to leave your message at the article talkpage if you think you want to discuss this issue further. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked one week from editing for vandalism, as you did at Derek Kilmer. You edits have crossed the line into vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

BGWhite, or any other administrator: Good. I have finally got the attention of some (I dare hope) adult supervision on this issue. Go the to Eric Kilmer talk page: I have been trying to get the attention of any Wikipedia administrator about the NPOV problems with this page for over a year; there, and in the NPOV issues page. A JustinOlypen has been using the Kilmer page as a podium for his anti-Israel activism in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV standards and has responded to any attempt to reign the text back into acceptable, neutral language by replacing it with his original diatribe. Recently an NPOV banner showed up on the article, which was encouraging; but no action was taken, so I waved a red flag in hope of getting some action. My solution to his (and there may be a second user with a similar bias, or he is using another computer) is the text below. If that is not acceptable, replace it with something that is approved but act on this problem. Again, go to the Eric Kilmer talk page and get involved, or get someone with editorial authority to step in. As for being blocked, I will probably live another week happily enough. If Wikipedia will address the NPOV issue I will be satisfied; now that I have your attention I will stop vandalizing the article, but I will not accept the inappropriate political activism you have been allowing on Eric Kilmer's article and will respond by replacing it with the neutral language below (the "complicated" line was JustinOlypen's contribution, which I retained): Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 ?UNIQ6af2d4b6eb810a83-nowiki-0000001B-QINU?1?UNIQ6af2d4b6eb810a83-nowiki-0000001C-QINU?, Rep. Kilmer supports I increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military, and to provide assistance for cooperation in the fields of energy, water, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative fuel technologies. Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated."?UNIQ6af2d4b6eb810a83-nowiki-0000001E-QINU?2?UNIQ6af2d4b6eb810a83-nowiki-0000001F-QINU? On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer was to address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon; this meeting was deleted from the AIPAC calendar.?UNIQ6af2d4b6eb810a83-nowiki-00000021-QINU?3?UNIQ6af2d4b6eb810a83-nowiki-00000022-QINU?

Decline reason:

Edits like this suggest that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. POV issues should be resolved on article talk pages; unblock requests are not for the sole purpose of getting attention for your cause. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:57, 5 July 2014 (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.

7-12-14 OhNoitsJamie - You're right, I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, not yet, I don't have the expertise in any field, although I'm gaining ground in pre-contact Andean history - I am here to preserve and maintain an encyclopedia; where I see clear and unequivocal violation of established fact I try to fix it. My first revise was the word "Inca" to the word "Olmec," in context of wheeled toys. The Olmecs made them, the Incas did not. No controversy there among academic authorities. If I live another couple years, and Wikipedia does as well, and learn the rules of this system, I may found an article. As for the Kilmer imbroglio, that's an anomaly - Representative Kilmer seems like a nice guy, well educated, well intentioned, and whose politics are kind. He didn't deserve that sort of eczema on his article.Czypcamayoc (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial 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. Kuru (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a discussion at Talk:Chakana. Please respond there before I take other action. Kuru (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]