User talk:176.77.136.98

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — MarkH21talk 22:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Spectrum
Can you please explain why are you constantly removing mentions of her death? Because right now there is absolutely no wiki rule that would forbid it. Azure94 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now also noticed that you're reinserting links to pro-Orban propaganda websites to the Kim Lane Scheppele article. --Azure94 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment. I also edited something in the list of Assyrian kings, if you would like to undo it...--176.77.136.98 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where? You must have done it under a different IP. --Azure94 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Hungarian Spectrum. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges.

  Mad Jim Bey (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kim Lane Scheppele 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

reliable sources/original research
Re: your edits to the Hungarian Spectrum page, citing online comments on an article in the way you did constitutes original research, especially summarising them to mean people were "relieved", you should read WP:OR for more info. For why you shouldn't use forum/online comment sections as sources for articles, you should read WP:RS. In short wikipedia needs Reliable Sources, they are not. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)