User talk:2601:86:3:10E0:D8CF:5621:BC2D:6C64

May 2018

Zefr Can I add content from ayurvedic books under section titled ayurvedic use with the references from the best ayurvedic books? Because so many articles contain information without references.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sesame oil. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zefr (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sesame oil

Your sources do not comply with quality medical sources described in WP:MEDASSESS. You are being warned again for adding improperly sourced content. Further, you have now violated WP:3RR. --Zefr (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Sesame oil 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. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 5 May 2018 (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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2018 (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 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).

2601:86:3:10E0:D8CF:5621:BC2D:6C64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Jytdog undid my edits without specifying which primary sources failed. He gave general comment of boatload of primary sources that fail. Be specific as this is medical related. He did not specify he is working on verifying primary sources.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2018 (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.

This is your second block for disruption. While @Jytdog:'s feed back would be useful, what is needed here is for you to not edit war. Please explain what WP:edit warring is and how it is disruptive and what alternatives are available to you. Please read WP:BRD and explain how is it germane? Please read WP:DR and explain how it is germane. As to your original question, Medicine related articles must meet WP:MEDRS. Hope this helps.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.