User talk:ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta

June 2023

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I see you think that I am editing warring and looking at the editorial list it looks superficially like I am simply reverting yours and William's edits but you can see for yourself that the current version is actually consensual and I haven't returned the originally reverted material as William originally reverted to the article, and I agree that the article shouldn't have the ICCP GWP values in as William has stated - so I think although the reversions are occurring we are not warring. In addition, you can see I have written a response here, so diplomacy (that is "Talks") are proceeding, which doesn't really support you giving me a notice here. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie, you can see for yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Top_contributors_to_climate_change&oldid=1162172738 which is your reverted version that "Top contributors to climate change are the companies, sources, countries on Earth causing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, which are mainly: Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide and the fluorinated gases[1] bromofluorocarbon, chlorofluorocarbon, hydrochlorofluorocarbon,[2] hydrofluorocarbon,[3] nitrogen trifluoride,[2] perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride[3] (25,200 [1])[1]" isn't a possible article intro so your reversion created problems which you could have solved by copy and paste, or by manual changes, so it is not like I am simply creating a problem and you and william are creating a solution. Surely we have not been delusional here and I have understood williams argument with GWP as being true, so I haven't edit war reverted, and if you look through my reversions they aren't compete rereversions/undo reversions but compromises of yours + wiliams vs my position, lease review my reversions if you will. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeating the same edit - in whole or in part - for any reason is a revert. It is up to you to go to a talk page (the article talk page, not your user talk page) and get consensus support for your edits. MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, so I'll go to that Talk page instead. See you there! ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to James Tilly Matthews. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The PsychCentral article is not proper sourcing for this sort of thing, and creates a point-of-view in the article that is not supported by the sources.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at James Tilly Matthews, you may be blocked from editing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see you had reverted before I added the most recent edit so I didn't ignore your reversion, I was unaware of the reversion situation at the time. It isn't necessary to provide a second notice here, for the reason I just gave. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to Astrobiology appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Enough

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Stifle (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)