| Revision as of 18:37, 7 March 2015 editMoorrests (talk | contribs)303 edits →March 2015← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:46, 7 March 2015 edit undoJ8079s (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,585 edits →March 2015Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| The discussion is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Science#Should_we_add_this_line_to_the_lead.3F. The argument against it are nonsensical. No argument against the references I provided have been made that make sense really. ] (]) 18:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | The discussion is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Science#Should_we_add_this_line_to_the_lead.3F. The argument against it are nonsensical. No argument against the references I provided have been made that make sense really. ] (]) 18:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{uw-editwar}}] (]) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:46, 7 March 2015
March 2015
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Science, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Are you a sock puppet trying to evade a block?https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Teaksmitty a sock of https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Batsgasps#Sockpuppet_investigation who made this same edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Scientific_method/Archive_21#Sockpuppetry_by_Batsgasps where it is discussed. J8079s (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Everybody who doesn't agree with you is not a sockpuppet. Moorrests (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Moorrests, you are edit warring, even of you haven't reached 4 edits in 24 hours. You boldly changed the lead and were reverted. At that point you should have started a discussion on the article talk page. I reverted you because I could see no consensus for this change. Mikenorton (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Science#Should_we_add_this_line_to_the_lead.3F. The argument against it are nonsensical. No argument against the references I provided have been made that make sense really. Moorrests (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
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.J8079s (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)