User talk:132.68.75.180

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Brown dwarf page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Brown dwarf should not have been nominated for speedy deletion

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Brown Dwarf, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Detailed explanation: You nominated brown dwarf for speedy deletion because of alleged copyright violations shortly after the article for Shiv Kumar was nominated for speedy deletion for the exact same reason. If I remember correctly, the creator of the Kumar biography, Pbarya, posted under your IP address on the now-deleted talk page for the Kumar article, implying that you are Pbarya. Even if that is incorrect, your edits to brown dwarf have sought to emphasize Kumar's work, so the timing of your nomination makes it appear that you wanted to protest the deletion nomination of the Kumar article. Moreover, it should have been clear that the external websites had copied the brown dwarf article, and not vice-versa. Astro4686 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)