User talk:76.76.254.34

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Glucomannan. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:46, 17 May 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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Glucomannan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. INeedSupport (talk) 18:48, 17 May 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 do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Marianna251. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:57, 17 May 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.

Your recent editing history at Glucomannan 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. Marianna251TALK 19:02, 17 May 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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glucomannan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 17 May 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.

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:76.76.254.34 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: ). Thank you. Marianna251TALK 19:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Glucomannan

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the notice above which advised you "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." The purpose of the discussion at the Noticeboard was to address your behavior in repeatedly reverting to insert your preferred content despite multiple warnings from other editors not to do so, not to discuss the quality of or justification for your edits (that discussion should have taken place on the article's Talk page – not other editors' Talk pages – before the issue got to the Noticeboard). Since you failed to acknowledge your having violated the prohibition on edit warring, much less to agree to stop doing so, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. I'd encourage you to take this time to read our policies on edit warring carefully. You can expect subsequent blocks for the same behavior to be much longer. General Ization ^Talk 22:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Give me a break. You guys are a bunch of content bullies. It is stupid that one must read a large amount of articles before correcting incorrect data. You end up with content that is very one-sided because the experts in the fields that could lend credible content do not have time to read all of the "how to's." The mere attempt should be enough to warrant working with them instead of just shutting them down for not following proper procedure. I attempted to discuss it with the person that was calling me out. You point at me for edit warring, did they not do the exact same thing. Why is my insistence edit warring and theirs is proper procedure? I'll tell you why, because you guys are content bullies. If it was in the wrong place it's mostly because this site is not very intuitive when it comes to those procedures. Therefore you are stuck with the people that have nothing better to do than update Wikipedia. However, people and experts in the fields of topic do not have time to continue in such a ridiculous process as this. Good luck with your crap site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018‎ (UTC)

To answer your question, no, neither jytdog nor Marianna251 reverted article content more than 3 times in 24 hours, whereas you did. And jytdog initiated the discussion on the article's Talk page, a discussion in which you failed to participate. You were advised numerous times on this Talk page to read the policies you were violating, including links to those policies; your intuition was not needed to avoid further violations. Thanks for the wishes of good luck, but with your attitude I think we'll do fine without you. General Ization ^Talk 23:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, it would have actually taken far less time to read the policies and guidelines pointed your way than it did to engage in this edit war and subsequent arguments. Take this block as an opportunity. Read through the policies and guidelines Jytdog and I have pointed your way, particularly WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY, but also WP:ELNO and WP:LEAD. I've read them and they don't take long to get through. Even if you decide not to edit Wikipedia again, you'll know more about how a vast collaborative project like this one governs itself and where things went wrong. Marianna251TALK 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mueller/Manafort

Manafort wasn't the first person Mueller sent to jail. Alex Van Der Zwaan, a Dutch lawyer was the first person to serve prison time and then was deported back to the Netherlands. P37307 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello, I'm InvalidOS. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Daily Beast seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Invalid^OS (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

---