| Revision as of 20:25, 12 March 2018 editAugustine Paul Fitzgerald (talk | contribs)96 edits →Please revert← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:32, 12 March 2018 edit undoNeil S Walker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,795 edits Warning: Three-revert rule on Novichok_agent. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :I checked. The removal was not valid. The use of the term "generation" with regard to chemical weapons is widespread. See ] for examples. A moment of your time on Google Books or Google Scholar would have demonstrated this. ] (]) 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | :I checked. The removal was not valid. The use of the term "generation" with regard to chemical weapons is widespread. See ] for examples. A moment of your time on Google Books or Google Scholar would have demonstrated this. ] (]) 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :{{reply to|Neil S Walker}} As an expert in the field, I can say that that terminology is not widespread, and categorisation is inconsistent between academics. ] (]) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | :{{reply to|Neil S Walker}} As an expert in the field, I can say that that terminology is not widespread, and categorisation is inconsistent between academics. ] (]) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''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 --> ] (]) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:32, 12 March 2018
Please revert
Your edit at the Two by Twos article should be reverted (see diff here). The group is not a new religious movement at all, rather, it has been in existence since the 1800s. -- ψλ ● ✉ 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Only a narrow band of scholars restrict NRMs to the 20th century. Most accept that any sect which deviates from orthodox theology and has origins substantially later than the main religion are NRMs.Jsrkiwi (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source that supports the Two by Twos being classified as a NRM? If not, the classification does not belong in the article. If so, please provide the reliable source and put it into the article to support it. Further, if you include content into the lead of the article, it has to be covered in the body of the article (which it is not). Also, please be sure to sign your posts/comments with four tildes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that the various scholars' definitions are met by the characteristics of the 2x2s is sufficient without specific categorisation by a scholar. In any case, the 2x2s already appear on the page 'List of New Religious Movements'.Jsrkiwi (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
March 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Novichok agent, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Neil S Walker: Deletion has been partially reinstated with valid reason. Please check whether removal was valid before reverting. Jsrkiwi (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I checked. The removal was not valid. The use of the term "generation" with regard to chemical weapons is widespread. See Talk:Novichok_agent#Fourth_generation for examples. A moment of your time on Google Books or Google Scholar would have demonstrated this. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Neil S Walker: As an expert in the field, I can say that that terminology is not widespread, and categorisation is inconsistent between academics. Jsrkiwi (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Novichok_agent 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 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. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)