User talk:Websoftnew

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to the article on Carl Rinsch. It may be helpful to you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. An article can be found here WP:BLP. Making changes to an article that are not backed up by reliable sources simply because the article's subject requested it is against policy. All facts must be backed up by reliable sources, and unexplained removal of a large chunk of the article that is backed up by reliable sources is not permitted. What counts as a reliable source can be found in this article WP:RS. Any questions, please do contact me on my talk page. 79616gr (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, Websoftnew. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Carl Rinsch, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Carl Rinsch. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Carl Rinsch 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 article's 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—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websoftnew. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Courcelles (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you're more than welcome to discuss changes, creating a new account to continue an edit war you were warned to stop is not. That new account is blocked for good, and this account is blocked 24 hours for continuing to edit war using a sockpuppet. After that time is over, please make use of Talk:Carl Rinsch to discuss issues, rather than reverting or creating new accounts. Courcelles (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Websoftnew (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC) {{Edit fully-protected}} on the talk page.[reply]

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. Thank you.

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Carl Rinsch. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Courcelles (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is not allowed. When the block expires, please use Talk:Carl Rinsch to discuss things. You will not be able to edit the main article page anymore, as I have protected it. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Websoftnew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

always tried to give better and correct information on article "carl rinsch" . The information is genuine and 100% correct but other users are editing it again and again. There is a majority of users who are against my changes. But i guaranty changes were done to contribute wikipedia. Please check that information i uploaded , it was proper and in a better way. Websoftnew (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As explained in the warnings above, edit warring is just prohibited, even if you're right. If you're getting reverted, please use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Max Semenik (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.