User talk:159.146.51.112

January 2025

Hello, 159.146.51.112. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2025 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and avoiding promotional behavior. I would like to clarify that the addition I made is not promotional but instead contributes meaningfully to the topic by referencing a novel concept published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal indexed by Web of Science.

The cited source represents a reliable academic reference that aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on verifiability and reliability. It introduces a unique perspective that enhances the quality of the entry by broadening the scholarly debate. Furthermore, I believe that the inclusion of diverse academic views is critical to upholding Wikipedia's mission of being a balanced and comprehensive repository of knowledge.

If there are counterarguments or alternative perspectives, I welcome those contributions as they can further enrich the entry. However, outright removal of the information without considering its academic merit may inadvertently reflect bias and go against the principles of scholarly debate and Wikipedia’s collaborative ethos.

To address potential concerns, I propose the following:

The source and its relevance to the entry can be discussed on the article's talk page to ensure transparency and community review.

If additional verification is required, I am open to providing further supporting evidence for the validity of the reference.

I look forward to collaborating to ensure the entry remains accurate, balanced, and reflective of ongoing academic discourse.

Best regards, 159.146.51.112 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems to have been written by a chatbot. We would appreciate it if you would write your own comments. Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, but I assure you that my response was written personally and reflects my genuine concerns and commitment to contributing to Wikipedia’s integrity and scholarly standards.

My aim is to engage constructively and address the issue of why reliable, peer-reviewed references I have added are being removed. These sources meet the criteria of academic rigor and are relevant to the topic. I believe this enhances the article’s quality, not detracts from it.

If there are specific concerns or reasons why my contributions are considered inappropriate, I would appreciate clarification. I value the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and would like to ensure my edits align with its policies and standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 159.146.51.112 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CITESPAM which explains why your contributions are inappropriate. NJZombie (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I would like to clarify that my intention is not to engage in an edit war but to contribute constructively to the article by providing reliable, peer-reviewed sources that enhance its quality and scholarly value.

I acknowledge the importance of following Wikipedia’s guidelines and the need to achieve consensus among editors. To resolve this issue, I will refrain from making further reverts and will instead engage in discussion on the article’s talk page, as you suggested. I believe that a collaborative approach will help us find common ground and create a version of the article that reflects a balanced and well-supported perspective.

If there are specific concerns regarding my edits, I kindly ask for clarification so we can address them constructively. I am also open to seeking dispute resolution if needed to ensure fairness and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to working together to improve the article. 159.146.51.112 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2025 (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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:159.146.51.112 reported by User:Snowycats (Result: ). Thank you. Snowycats (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me about the discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard regarding my recent edits. I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter and provide clarification.

I want to emphasize that my intention has always been to contribute constructively to Wikipedia by adding reliable, peer-reviewed sources to improve the quality of the content. I understand the importance of following Wikipedia’s guidelines, including those on edit warring, and I sincerely apologize if my actions were perceived as a violation of these policies.

I am committed to resolving this issue collaboratively. To that end, I will refrain from making further edits to the article in question and will actively participate in the discussion on the article’s talk page or any other appropriate forum to reach a consensus with other editors.

Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to resolving this matter in a way that aligns with Wikipedia’s principles and community standards.

Best regards 159.146.51.112 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Peace.

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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.