Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Marduk. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. none of your sources backed up the claims, you added details about Greek mythology which are irrelevant to Marduk and you also made people download a file when they clicked on one of the links. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Matriarchy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. as with Marduk - and the two sources supposedly about Python didn't mention Python Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I clicked on the wrong reference at Matriarchy, one does mention Python, but I can't find anything about Python in [1] however. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is Law . Have you read WP:RS? Who wrote this? Where was it published? Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tiamat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matriarchy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I don't know if you actually read the links above, but you've now exceeded 3RR deliberately and can be blocked, not for hitting 3RR but for going over it after the warning. I've reported you here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but if you revert all your edits since mine (and it would be a good idea to retract your attack in the edit summary), I'll ask that you definitely not be blocked. I don't want to see you blocked, I want to see you using references properly, more discussion, and no personal attacks. And understanding about WP:CONSENSUS, please read that also. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I see you have been having a bit of trouble with references and such. They can be a real pain. I am watching this page, so, you can write here and I will see it, and reply. Don't worry or be upset. I will help you work everything out. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ana. It is my pleasure to help. I am looking at the article now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks!! :O)

I am happy to help out.

I will not touch the article, unless you want me to. I feel it is best that you do things. That way you can learn, and you don't have to worry about someone else jumping in and changing things.

First things first. Don't undo what others have done. Let's work on adding things. If you undo things then someone will block you from editing. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Anna, but you know I didn´t "undo" anything so far --quite other way around: recent editors deleted all my reliable/sourced editions. So, if this rule is to work they should be the ones to be blocked. Secondly, thousands of articles have an etymology (simple, easy one) subtitle --and curious (to say the least, LOL) this one didn´t. So I worked this under terminology and this editor simply deleted all my sourced editions. So I opened the standart etymology subtitle. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much again for yr support --I´ll be out for some 20 min. and brb. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome.

Sometimes an editor removes something, and you put it back, and s/he removes it again, etc. What that means is you both start adding up "reverts". You can only change what someone did 3 times in 24 hours, or you could get blocked. Even if it's a little tiny bit, it still counts. Even if you are putting something back, it still counts.

But, there's a clever trick: The Sandbox! It is a lovely secret place to build stuff in private. You are not registered, so I don't know if you can make a sandbox with an IP. You can register if you want. It only takes a few seconds. But, you can also use one of my sandboxes.

Here it is: User:Anna_Frodesiak/Violet_sandbox

You can build anything you want there and nobody will bug you. When it is ready, just cut and paste it into the article. (Actually, if it is within 24 hours, you'd better wait, or ask me to do it. I don't want you to get blocked.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the last copy of your Etymology section safely in the sandbox for you. And now, somebody has removed it from the Matriarchy article. But don't worry. Also, they took out a reference you added to the History section. A Google Book reference needs to be put together in a tidy way. I can help you with that later. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see: this editor has more than three editions... in a single day, in a single hour! 187.21.128.77 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but are you actually reading any of the links I've given you? WP:3RR makes it clear that consecutive edits all count as one edit, not several. And please, if you hit 3RR tomorrow, you may get blocked even if you don't exceed it, your reverts after warning today are really pretty insulting to our guidelines. Look at my comments on Anna's talk page, discuss your opinions, try to get consensus. If you don't do that, if you continue as today, I'll have to ask that the page be protected from editing until you do. And you simply can't continue to add stuff that isn't cited properly, in the same style as the rest of the article. It's not easy at first, there's a real learning curve, but we all have to do it. That's why I gave you a link about referencing. Page numbers in books (not articles) are generally vital to be able to verify that a source is being used correctly. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Here are some other hints and tips:

• I recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
• When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab's reverted you, please just leave the article alone for the next 24 hours and just discuss on the talk page. It may be too late to stop someone else (not me!) from blocking you, but if you revert again I think it will definitely be too late. And being men doesn't make us wrong, at least not all the time. :-) Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Matriarchy. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|your reason here}}.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:187.21.128.77 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...

Ok, but when can I SAVE my editions into teh article again?187.21.128.77 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you need to get consensus. Anna, I've pointed the IP to WP:CONSENSUS. Basically there are two issues. One is that there are two editors, Dab and myself, who disagree with what the IP is adding. Plus a minor disagreement from Pinethicket. You really need to discuss it all at the talk page and get agreement. If you don't plan to do that, I'll ask that the page be protected from any editing until there is agreement. Hopefully Anna will help you deal with the other issue, sourcing. Both how to cite (a link to Google is not nearly enough), and making sure that your sources actually discuss the aspects of the article you are citing them for. You don't want to develop a reputation for ignoring other editors. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dougweller. I didn't know that. So, after 24 hours, bring the proposed changes to the talk pages. Don't just add them.

But now is a good time to look at why this happened in the first place. First, two of the editors who reverted your edits are administrators. They are experienced and thoughtful editors who help manage Wikipedia. They had good reasons to undo your edits. They are not just a bunch of wild boys. They found that the references had problems, and there were other issues. So, it is good to check a few things:

• Look at what is in the article. Is what you want to add a good addition to, or an improvement upon, what is already there? Are you adding something that is properly formatted?

• Take things one step at a time. Please be patient. Things happen slowly here. Prepare. Learn how to format references properly.

The trick to editing, is to make good edits that improve the articles. That way, nobody will want to remove them. Others might improve upon them. But that is good. Ending up adding, reverting, adding, reverting, adding, etc. always ends badly, and is usually for a reason. If things are going that way, stop after one revert. Ask why.

Please ask any questions you like. I will be happy to help. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that straight off your block you reinserted, without discussion, your version of the article for which it is clear you don't have consensus. If you continue you are almost certain to be blocked again. Please discuss and get consensus, or just stop. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iam opened for discussion --you are not, since you blocked me.

1. Do you agree with an etymology subtitle? As for the third editor minor disagreement, I´ve included Britannia.com citation. So this is no longer an issue;
2. As for the images --thy are cited on the article and they are related to the goddess worship (from Neolithic, pic on the right side to ancient civilizations, pic on the left side);
3. I used not only many scholars Google Books but many wikipedia internal links (tiamat´s; mother´s etymology, etc);
4. A citation from Burkert was deleted (why?) --"goddess presiding a male society";
5. A citation even from Modern Matriachal Studies (linking the word ama with mother); this link (not to say etymology itsalf!!) is on mother wikipedia under "translation and synonymous" of the word mother (this was also deleted);
6. The etymology of mother is not to consider (can we delete the etymologyy of "pater"?)?! Almost all articles have an etymology subtitle;
7. The other editor, out of nothing, simply included an "unreliable source" tag on tiamat´s article --did he read the book, based on what did he includ this tag? Apparentely out of his own mind --can he prove tiamat´s etymology is not "mother of life"? A goddess who gives birth to all deities, who is the mother of all goddesses and gods is the basis, is basic ancient mythology; there are no news about that (http://www.sheila-t-harty.com/DeMythologizing%20Religion%20with%20Joseph%20Campbell.doc) 187.21.128.77 (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ana. I see you reverted again. Here is the talk page for the article. I really suggest you use it.

Your points above might be good. But, I didn't read them, because that's not the issue right now. Bring it up at talk, get consensus, add it to the article. In that order. If you don't do it that way, you will be blocked again. Try "cooperation". It's the best way to do things. Happy trails, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you have brought the matter to discussion. Please, be patient and compromising. I will stay out of it, as I know little about the subject. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

how long will they take to answer? 187.21.128.77 (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]