User talk:137.132.28.254

April 2018

Hello, I'm Classicwiki. I noticed that you recently removed content from LIPIA without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LIPIA. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges.
Please STOP deleting cited information, which is what our articles are based on, not what an unknown person claims to "know" - Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at LIPIA 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. - Arjayay (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at LIPIA. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

COI

Hello, 137.132.28.254. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article LIPIA, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

LIPIA article

Hi

Seems like you would like to see some changes to that article made.... and I am noticing that you are removing large chunks of information without discussing it on the articles talk page [[1]].

For example, it would be helpful to know your feelings behind why you don't think the information you are taking out of the article belongs in the article? Do you believe it is innacurat, unhelpful, etc.? One thing that really helps wikipedia to work well is when different editors share their thoughts and feelings on specific edits.... and when there is disagreement, to work towards WP:CON.

Please, please please, post on the talk page about why you'd like to see the information taken out. Warmly, Sethie (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sethie,

Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Classicwiki

I've wrote some explanation and I not a frequent of Wiki so not familiar with the syntax and norms.

Sad to say, Wiki do not have specialized administrators to check on false information and do not have the necessary measures to prevent it.

Specifically for this article, those who wrote it or trying to retain false information, do not know what they are doing or doing it for points system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.28.254 (talk)

The thing you don't understand about Wikipedia is, the administrators don't actually care if you're right. You were warned to stop edit warring, and you continued anyway. If we gave people a pass on edit warring because they honestly thought they were right, there would be edit wars everywhere at all times. So to this situation: The article is written a certain way, and cites sources. You claim this information is false. The correct reaction to an editor reverting your changes is to explain at the article's talk page (or at the moment, on this talk page since you can't edit anything else), what is false and why. You should be able to explain why the sources for that false information are wrong or misinterpreted. You may even have to turn up sources of your own to prove that what you say is true. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I would 2nd that. Wikipedia is like writing an article, in which EVERYTHING needs to be backed up by an expert source. Our own opinions or knowledge don't really matter here. What matters is our ability to cite experts' opinions..... What I would suggest is for you to pick one point or idea in the article you don't believe is accurate and then go find a source which shows that it isn't accurate, and post that on the talk page. I, and I would guess most of the editors for that article aren't really attached to the content of the article, we're attached to the wiki process of writing articles. Sethie (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about your edits

I am sad to say I have opened a discussion about your edits.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Sethie (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at LIPIA. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}.  Someguy1221 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

---