User talk:Bikersur

Bikersur, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bikersur! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Hari

Another user has expressed concern about your edits on Talk:Vani Hari#Section_blanking_and_other_edits. You should consider discussing with them. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Vani Hari 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2015 (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:Bikersur reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: ). Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual point you're trying to make isn't unreasonable, but multiple editors disagree with you and edit warring over it does nothing but disrupt the project and escalate the dispute. There are many means of dispute resolution, reverting because you believe you're right is not one of them. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Phoenix Project (novel)

The article The Phoenix Project (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Book advert, propped up by churnalism, press releases, Amazon reviews, and references to other books by the same outfit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 18:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Visible Ops Security

The article Visible Ops Security has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Book advert, with not even a suggestion of how it could meet WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 18:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]