User talk:12.189.124.50

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * Very funny! Restoring well sourced content is disruptive? Don't try to game the system.

Hello, 12.189.124.50. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian.
 * Can you explain the harassment? Let me put here your disruptive edits:, , , . Do you want to see more? 12.189.124.50 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Your recent edits to User talk:117.206.88.136 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Your recent editing history at Zomato 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CLCStudent (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * CLCStudent, Can you please check the article's controversy section and the sources I provide? 12.189.124.50 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now, I am not taking sides. Right now, we need to calm down and if necessary, get third opinion. I do not want to here one more comment about playing the victime card. CLCStudent (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for the advise. 12.189.124.50 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I see, there is no clear and concise disruption other than the fact that you two are edit warring. My recommendation at this time would be to see a thirs opinion in accordance with the processes outlined in the edid-warring notice. CLCStudent (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that edit you made discusses a single incident. Something like that is not very notable if it just happened once. CLCStudent (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and the other edit you reverted to is also happened once. A customer made a racist tweet to refuse delivery from a non-Hindu for which even police had to issue notice to the person and you removed that part and only kept insignificant content of right wing belives. 12.189.124.50 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, now it looks like an admin already came and made a ruling on the right version and reverted to that reversion. CLCStudent (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that was ruling on the right version because the edit summary was given as: Stautus quo ante. Anyway, I will put my comments on the article's talk page.12.189.124.50 (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)