| Revision as of 21:10, 31 March 2014 editMann jess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,672 edits Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 31 March 2014 edit undoKshilts (talk | contribs)49 edits compromiseNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| == March 2014 == | == March 2014 == | ||
| A war requires two opposing sides. | |||
| Why is it that no matter what I offered, you (and your various handles) found it unacceptable, including when I left your initial comment intact? Your intransigence toward making any attempt at compromise language is disappointing but revealing. | |||
| I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked. | |||
| ] (]) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''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. | ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''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. | ||
Revision as of 21:19, 31 March 2014
Welcome!
|
Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards
Hello, I understand that the word "organization" can be spelled either with a "s" or a "z" depending on where you live but the spelling used for the category uses an "s" so your change here broke the link at the bottom of the article. So, I'll correct the link again. Please be careful before reverting somebody else's change as my update was perfectly explained in my edit summary.--McSly (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
A war requires two opposing sides. Why is it that no matter what I offered, you (and your various handles) found it unacceptable, including when I left your initial comment intact? Your intransigence toward making any attempt at compromise language is disappointing but revealing. I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked. Kshilts (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Chiropractic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Chiropractic
Kshilts, something to remember is that our WP:NPOV policy means that we describe something as independent reliable sources describe it, not as the article subject describes themselves. When editing, if you get reverted, the best way to handle it is to start a discussion on the article talk page. The preferred editing cycle is called BRD - Be bold and make an edit, but if it gets reverted, start a discussion on the talk page. You need to use sources to support your preferred version, especially if the current version is supported by references. Ravensfire (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- You got a warning message above about this, but continually making changes, even different ones, to the same article that get reverted is called an edit-war and strongly frowned upon here. If you revert more than 3 times in a 24-hour period (note, not a single day, but in a 24-hour period), you can end up being blocked. You need to use the article talk page and discuss your changes. Don't make further changes until you get consensus from other editors. I'll warn you that getting consensus for your changes on the Chiropractic article will be tough. There are lots of solid references to support the description and you're going to need to show why that is incorrect. NPOV means that Misplaced Pages neutrally reflects what sources say without showing bias one way or the other, even when that's uncomfortable for some people. Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have created a talk here for you. Use it and do not revert the article again or you will end up blocked for edit-warring. Ravensfire (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kshilts reported by User:Mann jess (Result: ). Thank you. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)