User talk:49.183.57.34

July 2019

Hello, I'm OxonAlex. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Neal D. Barnard, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alain de Botton, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. FiberTech (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Neal D. Barnard, you may be blocked from editing. FiberTech (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Alain de Botton

Hi - I'm not going to leave a warning template here, but I wanted to explain more fully why I reverted you. I have no way of knowing whether you genuinely are the person you claim to be, but I'll assume good faith and take it that you are indeed a writer for the NYT, and a personal friend of the subject. You should review our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest before making any further changes to that page.

The material you removed was, on the face of it, pertinent to the section, and it was reliably sourced - it was written in the Guardian by a notable critic, it's not like the article is quoting some random website. Whether we are giving too much weight to that particular review is something that could be discussed, but that should be done on the article talk page. You should go there, disclosing your COI, and make your case for why the material should be removed. If you can generate a consensus amongst interested editors, then the content will be removed - but to be clear, you should not remove it yourself, since you have an obvious COI. I hope that makes sense, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, I'd add that threatening to write a negative article about our article on Botton is not going to swing anyone's decisions here, but it is likely to make people less inclined to agree with you. Make reasoned arguments based on Wikipedia policies. You could start by reading WP:BLP, which covers biographies of living persons.) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really - you reinstate your edit after the advice I just gave you? I'm going to follow this message up with a notification about out policies on edit warring, and the likelihood of your IP address being blocked from editing. WRT your edits on Neal D. Barnard, they are not acceptable for several reasons. First, they were unsourced (biomedical assertions, such as the one you inserted there, require very reliable sourcing as described at WP:MEDRS); second, you are addressing the reader in the second person, and using abbreviation, which we do not do per our WP:MOS. Please desist. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Alain de Botton. FiberTech (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Alain de Botton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:49.183.57.34 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: ). Thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.