User talk:95.246.196.32

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 04:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I set reliable reference.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "excellent project" does not conform to a neutral tone. El_C 04:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok , i'll delete this tioo personal edit. I agree. You are right.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to suspect there's a language barrier here. Passages such as "which has had too many delays and will lead to the end of the use of all fossil fuels, whose combustion produces very dangerous products for humans and the environment such as carbon dioxide and others — that run-on sentence is just subpar prose, I'm sorry to say. El_C 04:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can say instead. The project has had many delays, but once complete, it is estimated that it will end the over-reliance on fossil fuels, which produces dangerous emissions. Now, I have no idea to what extent that's true, but the point is that you need to better proofread your writing before submitting it to the article mainspace. El_C 04:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at ITER, you may be blocked from editing. Please be aware of the edit warring rules. Thank you. Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:11, 16 June 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.

You are disruptive, mr. NO.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at ITER 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.
Please reach consenus on the talk page first. I do not believe your edits are written from a neutral point of view, and other editors appear to agree. Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not reached consensus, so I have reverted your edit. Please reach consensus first. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List me other editors except you. Explain what you don't like. You are stopping a an editing without a real valid reason.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that you are violating the 3-revert-rule, and that you do not seem to be willing to discuss your change properly. Please propose your change on the talk page first, and reach consensus there before attempting to make your edit. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JalenFolf and User:El_C have also reverted some of your edits. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 05:10, 16 June 2019 (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.