| Revision as of 10:47, 15 June 2015 editGB fan (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators103,303 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Operation Northwoods. (TW) | Revision as of 10:53, 15 June 2015 edit undoGB fan (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators103,303 edits →June 2015: additional commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> -- ] ] 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> -- ] ] 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| You should also look read ] of the ] policy. It says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The information you want to add has been challenged and the edit summaries said you will need to provide a cite for the information. Do not make the changes again without adding a reliable source that directly support your change. -- ] ] 10:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:53, 15 June 2015
June 2015
Your recent editing history at Operation Northwoods 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 get 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. -- GB fan 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You should also look read this section of the WP:Verfiability policy. It says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The information you want to add has been challenged and the edit summaries said you will need to provide a cite for the information. Do not make the changes again without adding a reliable source that directly support your change. -- GB fan 10:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)