User talk:GR.no

Welcome!

Hello, GR.no, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to PubMed. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zefr (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Umami for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Is this supposed to be a passive insult? The talk page subject I created at Umami is perfectly valid. Are you new here? GR.no (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Umami, you may be blocked from editing. please stop the edit warring and your opinion/forum effort displayed on Talk:Umami. This is WP:SOAP behavior. Zefr (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi.You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did break the 3RR rule once, because I wasn't really keeping count. And yes, the IP is my IP. There is no sock puppetry, I just don't keep track of when I'm logged in. I believe I am also being gang edited, possibly by friends of this person. GR.no (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I havent broken any rule. The edits which are being reverted later are totally different. I keep adding new or different information, which is also being reverted without discussion. I realize you may be an admin, but you are seriously gang editing me on a subject which is very obviously invalid. GR.no (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Reverting for the definition. You were listed on AN3 and I responded to the report. I have absolutely no connection to anyone involved in the dispute. El_C 00:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When/if you return from your block, take a break and edit something else. Since your GR.no username was created on 18 February, you have been involved in disputes on Umami or Garum pursuing this one line of non-consensus thinking that umami isn't scientifically accepted -- it is, indisputably. This behavior of yours is consistent with POV-pushing and opinion-editing per WP:SOAP. Please stop and work elsewhere for awhile. --Zefr (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garum had obvious vandalim in which I reverted, that has been up for a long time and nobody has caught. I only further down the trail to revert other improper materials too, which is how I came across Umami. Really, try looking at the persons(s) disputing my edits first. All I am doing is cleaning articles or adding to the quality of them. GR.no (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also you are making me laugh, the information i added to the article is accurate in stating how unami is definitely not an established scientific fact. there are no sources that prove this, and it certainly is only a theory. lol you really think i care dont you, this is hilarious. dont be a fool. GR.no (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Umami 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) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But my edits are proper and should not be removed. GR.no (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2017 (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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Talk:Umami. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit war after your block expires, the next block will likely be for months or indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]