User talk:24.184.26.105

Why does someone keep changing this? It is properly cited.

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! 4meter4 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Ewell and the problem of self published sources
Hi there. I see you added this source to the Phillip Ewell article:

Unfortunately this source is not usable on Wikipedia because it is self published. If you go to our written policy at WP:SELFPUBLISH you can read detailed explanation why this kind of content is not allowable on Wikipedia. In examining Scott Freuhwald he is a respected legal scholar, but it’s not clear that he is a respected expert within music or musicology or psychology/neuroscience. Given that he is working and publishing in a completely different academic area, the use of this material is questionable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Philip Ewell. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. At this point, it is time to stop reverting edits and comment on the talk page. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.

February 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Heinrich Schenker has been reverted. Your edit here to Heinrich Schenker was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://heinrichschenker.wordpress.co/open-letter-on-schenkers-racism-and-its-reception-in-the-united-states/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

March 2022
Your recent editing history at Journal of Schenkerian Studies 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing from new IP editor at Heinrich Schenker
Greetings. I just wanted to inform you that another IP user is persistently editing the Heinrich Schenker article according to their very biased views. Opened a new discussion on the matter at Schenker's talk page. Notifying you because you've been part of the continuing discussion on the article. Thanks! — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)