User talk:TenBingo

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Glutamine 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. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring/Admini Board
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Your recent editing history 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.

I reverted your GFedit
Hello, I am a RCP and Pending Change Reviewer, and I deleted your edit of Chronic fatigue syndrome because I couldn't understand your reasoning behind it, and it appeared to be cite deletion and blanking. If I am remiss in this, sorry. L3X1 Complaints Desk 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To all admins who are watching
Have you checked what is shared by petergstorm? All his link are not valid and nothing informational have been added. If he is removing my links for the same thing then why the hell am i being blocked?

there is no edit war going on I read his post and there was no need of the information to add in those topics if there was then my post were valid as well!

Either you are a troll, or you need to examine WP:CIR. For the former reason, I'm only going to address this once. Additions to medical articles need to follow WP:MEDRS, and you need WP:CIR to edit. If english is not your first language, you need to double check what you add. this, and this demonstrates poor editing. You need a good secondary source that is relevant to the article, which you paraphrase well, cite correctly and is of a neutral point of view. Your edits were not that
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citrulline&diff=prev&oldid=761531342
 * Supplementscience is not a valid source


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glutamine&diff=prev&oldid=761530860
 * The "benefits of glutamine" is not NPOV, was not cited and was poorly written, and again supplement science is not a valid secondary source.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chernobyl_Cannabis_Strain&diff=prev&oldid=761529436
 * This chart made no sense and was not cited.

First read and understand policies before you go vindictively vandalizing.Petergstrom (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to give you one example of your problematic edits, in this one you:
 * added Wikilinks around common words, and we don't do that,
 * added an unsourced "Benefits" section, and
 * added a medical claim that was not backed by a source compliant with WP:MEDRS
 * All of those were bad changes, it was correct to revert them, and you most certainly did edit war to keep putting them back without any attempt at discussion. The English you were adding was also poor (though that is of less significance). If you do not listen to what you are being told and your editing behaviour continues like this after your block expires, you should expect a significantly longer second block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I've covered similar ground to Petergstrom here, but you need to know it is not just one person who sees your editing as problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Another uninvolved admin here. What brought you to my attention was this unexplained undoing of a Petergstrom edit--you removed content for no stated reason other than as part of a pattern of undoing Petergstrom's edits for no stated reason. The content seems reasonable, is supported by the chemical polarity page linked in a previous sentence (and also by the articles linked from that one, and another level down also) as well as pretty basic math/physics. And this edit is purely disruptive and clearly demonstrates your pattern by removal of a comment by Petergstrom on an article talkpage. Your main activity here of late is to disrupt our encyclopedia in many ways. That help won't be needed. For the record, I would have blocked for longer, maybe indef, but I don't currently feel strongly enough to push for upgrading the existing block. DMacks (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)