User talk:47.201.194.211

Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made a change to an article, History of general relativity, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David.moreno72 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at History of general relativity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in History of special relativity. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, twice you added an inappropriate item to the See-also section list: [1], [2]. There already is a wikilnk to the article Relativity priority dispute in the article body, so we cannot add it again to the See-also section —.see wp:NOTSEEALSO. I had explained that in my first revert: [3]. - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Relativity priority dispute, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Special relativity and General relativity. - DVdm (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Quantum entanglement 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread in which you are involved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 18:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally it appears that almost every single edit you've ever made to article space on Wikipedia has been reverted. I instruct you to do one things, and I suggest one of two options. Instruction: don't edit war to push your edits. Do it again and you'll be blocked again, no warning. Options: 1) you use the talk pages before you make any edits to Wikipedia in future, 2) maybe Wikipedia is not for you if you cannot abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (mostly don't edit war, abide by the manual of style and utilize reliable sources.) Additionally read WP:ONUS. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quantum entanglement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article talk page is for discussion of actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Per the report at ANI (permalink), your commentary is excessive and is a misuse of Wikipedia which is not a forum. Excessive commentary wastes the time and energy of editors who generally have more than one or two articles to maintain. Accordingly, you must restrict your comments to actionable proposals that have some chance of meeting WP:CONSENSUS (for example, a repetition of previous points would be disruptive). I will have to block you if problems continue. Please restrict your participation at Wikipedia to actions which improve the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@47.201.194.211: I have reverted your most recent comment at Talk:Elon Musk. You made your point there and must not over do it by violating WP:BLP. Whether you are correct about "lie" is not relevant to Wikipedia and is a comment you might like to place on Twitter. I will block you if it is repeated at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]