User talk:Hongon

July 2018
Your recent editing history at And you are lynching Negroes 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&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. Stickee (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Empty calories, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Please read WP:MEDRS. This is the source quality needed for content on food, nutrition, and medical topics. '' Zefr (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Empty calories 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 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 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.''Do not edit war, WP:WAR. Go to the talk page to discuss disputes.'' Zefr (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Empty calories. Zefr (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Onion. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Please read WP:MEDRS for the sourcing quality needed for Wikipedia's medical content. Also, learn how to format a reference; WP:REFB, WP:CIT.'' Zefr (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Zefr, fuck off and stop stalking me you fucking creep. I provided two sources for my claim, both coming from US government websites. So you are completly bullshitting.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Alexf(talk) 02:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Onion; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. ~ GB fan 12:28, 23 January 2019 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Onion. '' is a disruptive and abusive editor. Reporting to admin. '' Zefr (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss, all three sources confirm all my claims. In fact, YOU are the one who are edit warring by deleting SOURCED information.
 * At Wikipedia, some editorial competence is assumed to contribute to content and appropriate sourcing; see WP:CIR. Your choices of sources to make this edit and sources indicate you do not have competence for revising the Onion article content on the outcomes of biomedical research. PubMed is simply a listing service and does not represent the views of the National Institutes of Health or the US government, as you have claimed. Citing articles on preliminary research, as you have chosen, does not follow Wikipedia Medicine guidelines for choosing high-quality sources, mainly systematic reviews, to support medical content; see WP:MEDRS. In your edit warring, you have violated the WP:3RR rule on successive days, and have not engaged on the Talk page to clarify your misunderstanding. On top of this, with this statement yesterday, Hey Zefr, fuck off and stop stalking me you fucking creep. I provided two sources for my claim, both coming from US government websites. So you are completly bullshitting, you have violated WP:PA. I am seeking admin review of your account. --Zefr (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When multiple people have removed your addition there is something to discuss. I would recommend you self revert your last revert and use the talk page to discuss the sources.  ~ GB fan 19:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ~ GB fan 19:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Onion. 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:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)