User talk:86.187.171.52

March 2024[edit]

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. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2024 (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 currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Bon courage (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2024 (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[edit]

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:86.187.171.52 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Sam Kuru (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru:You obviously didn't look at the history of Bon courage and his egregious edits right across the Wiki. And as I said at the noticeboard, it was no more than 3RR. Funny how those two editors managed to work it so that neither of them went past 2RR, and both were on the scene almost immediately I made the first valid revert. Something fishy there. There's a name for that behaviour - tag team editing, is it? 86.187.171.52 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. See WP:NOTTHEM; this is an incredibly mild content dispute that should be resolved on the article's talk page over a reasonable period of time. There is no rush that would require that many reverts over ten minutes.Sam Kuru (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:BURDEN. The burden is on you to gain consensus for including what you want included. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

86.187.171.52, I believe the mistake you made was to add too many publications [1], this is a common mistake on Wikipedia. What is needed is a "selected publications" list, not an exhaustive list of almost every publication he has written. We do not need to list every publication the person wrote but there is nothing wrong with citing their most popular books or papers. You were trying to add 28 publications. If you added around 6 - 8 this would be more practical and reasonable. If you look at Michael Klaper's article it cites 8 publications in total. 28 is too many and will be reverted because it will be seen as promotional. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy:. Actually PG, I wasn't trying to add anything. The subject of the article has a new book published, so it would seem sensible to list it with his other publications. Another editor did this, but User:Bon courage didn't like it, and removed it. I explained in the edit summary why I put it back, but BC then started to edit war. He then deleted the entire bibliography, briefly edit warred, and then canvassed for assistance from other like-minded editors at a noticeboard - a useful trick to get your own way and avoid a 3RR block; he's effectively gaming the system. Anyway, I don't really care about this article, since I came across it purely by accident, but blatant POV-pushing and agenda pushing such as that exhibited by BC gets me riled.

PS: don't bother blocking my current IP. My ISP (EE in the UK) is highly dynamic, and is likely to change the address several times in an hour, so you'd just be blocking someone else. I'm not evading a block, because I won't edit another page; only this particular Talk page to talk to you. Thanks for your response. 86.187.231.41 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am sorry. Yes you are correct it seems you were just trying to add one book, his latest, then the entire list was removed. I believe that the entire list was excessive but I think we should add a selected publications for his most notable. There is no reason to cite 28 publications, that is overly promotional and some of those publications are not notable.

His upcoming book The Power Foods Diet: The Breakthrough Plan That Traps, Tames, and Burns Calories for Easy and Permanent Weight Loss is set to be published in April 2024 in the UK [2] it might turn out to popular. It's best to wait until the book is published and we have some academic reception until adding it to his article. So far I can only find one source that mentions the book [3] so it is still early days. No reviews have yet been published. Neal Barnard has published a lot of books over the years but none of them seem to be reviewed in medical journals. Red Pen Reviews is a good website that neutrally reviews all kinds of diet books [4] from a professional basis. They have not reviewed Barnard's material but I am hoping they may take a look at his latest book in the future and review it. It's probably just best waiting until we have better sources that have reviewed his book. Then the article can be expanded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(IP has changed again already) I think a point worth noting is that anyone interested in Barnard and coming to the article to find out about him, would benefit from a list of his publications, including one about to be published. It's basic information about someone - here's the person and this is what he's published (about to publish). Bibliographies are essential elements of biographies. However, I take your point that a list could get too long. I'm not sure if this one has though. I'll leave it up to others more knowledgeable about the person; perhaps the editor who added the new book in the first place. 31.52.163.154 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: Hello MrOllie. Please note that WP:NOTCV relates to user pages, not to articles. 31.52.163.154 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.