User talk:Philip Mexico

Puzzur-Ashur

Dear Philip, please clam down. I was editing based on an earlier version of the article and didn't see your contributions. I did not summarily revert them. I will have a look at them now and will keep as much as possible, if it is sourced. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with the article for the time being. Please have a look - if there's anything or your contribution I left out and which you insist on including please state this on the talk page. However, as I see it, the only things left out are clauses that don't add any information (e.g. that the name Zariqum is not in the AKL despite being Semitic.) Str1977 ^(talk) 12:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Puzur-Ashur I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Mexico, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Philip Mexico! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Puzur-Ashur I. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred, it is ridiculous for you to reinsert gratuitous references for the ancestry of Shamshi-Adad I, when that isn't the least bit relevant to Puzur-Ashur I (who is not even related). It belongs on another article and is at best off topic or synthesis there as any rational look at the matter should make manifest. The other editor is clearly in over their head with this topic, but interesting you Bite the new accounts here too I see, and the more familiar name is automatically counted right even when wrong and doesn't get blocked even when they revert way more than 3 times. Philip Mexico (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other user has at least attempted to discuss the matter at the talk page and present his sources. I don't see where you have participated, at least not since early this morning. There are merits to some of your changes; however, the way to get them made is to discuss the matter at the article's talk page, not keep forcing them into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred, Unfortunately I cannot discuss anywhere but here for now. So with that in mind I hope you will reconsider the appropriateness of inserting a gratuitous unproven conjecture about Shamshi Adad's ancestry on the article of every other king where it is not even related. I did not force my changes in the article but he edit warred to roll them all back again and again without cause and without repercussion. Philip Mexico (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another annoying thing that I cannot do anything about while blocked, User:C.Fred, is his reverting me on other articles to change 'Kings whose fathers are known' (correct rendering of the Assyrian) into his "Kings who are ancestors" (incorrect translation). If you take a moment to google and compare the quality and quantity of the sources that say it was "Kings who are ancestors" with those saying "Kings whose fathers are known" you will see it isn't even a contest. Philip Mexico (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp, why don't you use the talk page to communicate on these issues. It would make things a whole lot easier. I suggest you do so after your block expires. As for the one subtantial element of your edit summary: "Shalim-ahum's inscription is cited in Grayson": It is the job of the editor who inserts a claim into the article to provide the source, not anybody else's. And including the reference into another article doesn't free you from the obligation to do the same here. I have now gleaned from your edits over there where the claim comes from and not only added claim and reference back into this article, which I also reworded accordingly. If you haven't realised, the last inscription closed the gap between Puzur-Ashur and the rest of his successors. I want to close by saying: I am not your enemy. Don't treat me as such! Str1977 ^(talk) 05:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS.

>>gratuitous references for the ancestry of Shamshi-Adad I, when that isn't the least bit relevant to Puzur-Ashur I (who is not even related)<<

That actually was the point of the inserting the reference. And I made my point quite rationally.

>>to change 'Kings whose fathers are known' (correct rendering of the Assyrian) into his "Kings who are ancestors" (incorrect translation)<<

The supposedly "incorrect translation" is used by scholarly sources. I suppose the Assyrian is ambiguous and might be rendered both ways, though the fact that kings in section three have patronyms too suggests that the latter translation is more obvious. Anyway, these matters can be discussed on talk pages, not edit summaries. Str1977 ^(talk) 05:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred, may I PLEASE inquire your reasoning or your rationale as to why this user is allowed to continue unblocked and taunt me after HE was the one steadily undoing all of my edits on sight repeatedly like an edit-warring machine, simply because they were edits from my account and for no other apparent reason? This is indicative of spite, not logic. I was told before hand that wikipedia had a reputation among real scholars as something of a backwater, populated by crony editors who have high regard for their own "prestige" in being seen throwing their "clout" around, but low regard for where actual academia is at these days. Sadly, I see that everything people warned me about user:Jimmy Wales notorious fiasco is true and worse. This is downright dangerous ground for anyone who actually knows anything about a subject, and is a breeding ground for contemptuous bureaucratic lunkheads who favor their "buddies" out of loyalty and obviously block anyone else who really studies the topic on sight for knowing too much about it. Philip Mexico (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference I see is that Str1977 was working toward a compromise where you were just reverting back to a prior version. Wikipedia editing is a collaborative process, and editors have to work with other editors, not in straight opposition. That means compromise. That also means providing sources so other users—whether subject matter experts or not—can verify your edits. That said, I'm going to go ahead and unblock you so you can continue this discussion on the article's talk page—on "neutral ground"—so that all editors involved can work toward a consensus position. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy not only works feverishly past 3rr just to keep Assyrian king articles about 75 years out of date, he stalks my edits in other areas. Is this how it works here now? No thanks Philip Mexico (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the only possible rational explanation is that there is some kind of a "pet" who know they don't have to worry about any consequences when they violate 3RR, they have "cred" like that even when they know nothing about a topic, to get the other guy blocked who does actually know about it Philip Mexico (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Philip, once again I would like to invite you to discuss issues on the relevant talk pages or, if you have nothing to say, to self-revert your edits. Otherwise I will most certainly report your violations. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Philip Mexico. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 17:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expert editor?

Hello Philip Mexico,
I know nothing about the topic, or the issues you are having about your edits regarding Assyrian kings etc, apart from what I have seen on this page, and a quick look at your contributions history page. As you seem to have knowledge of the subject perhaps Wikipedia:Expert editors may be of interest.

The only other advice I can give is to try to remain cool and "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (quoted from wp:NPA) Some of your edit summaries come a bit close to 'personal attacks', which is not allowed.

If you're wondering how/why I came here, I was doing wp:New page patroling (WP:NPP) and noted your creation of the Zariqum page, You may be interested in wp:Draft, and wp:First article too. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 18:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Zariqum

Hi, I'm 220 of Borg. Philip Mexico, thanks for creating Zariqum!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix:

the page need sourcing, as currently it has none.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. 220 of ^Borg 18:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baath mac Magog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milesians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akkadian King List response

Hi Phillip,

Firstly, thank you for bringing to my attention the issues regarding the chronology of the kings following Shar-Kali-Sharri. You are indeed right that the King List does not confirm all four kings directly succeeded each other, however it also does not confirm they were all kings at the same time. Since there are no other sources with which to work except the king list, and therefore no way of proving which analysis is correct, I propose mentioning both ideas on the pages and noting that we simply can't be sure which is true.

Thanks,
Corporal Haddock(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rimush

You added an attribution to Mario Liverani for Manishtushu/Rimush being twins in a part referenced to Samuel Noah Kramer's 1963 work "Sumerians", where, on page 61, he (Kramer) does indeed speculate they were twins. Liverani's article from 40 years later simply echoes this position and provides a theory for why the "younger" twin preceded the "older" one, which I referenced. I think it would be best to attribute the twin idea correctly, but as there seem to be several proponents of this idea, how best to do it?BigEars42 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Your recent editing history at Canaan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you, but you've got to stop reverting now. I've asked the other editor to also. You've been blocked for editwarring before, so you know what happens. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Philip Mexico. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]