User talk:207566versant
May 2019
[edit]I have reverted your edits because they rely almost entirely on primary materials. If you want to add the information back it must be said (and synthesized) in a third party source, such as a news article or other source. Using primary sources, especially to come to a conclusion on a biography of a living person, is not how we operate per WP:SOURCE. Garuda28 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Garuda28 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Michael S. Rogers 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. 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I may not have explained this obviously enough earlier, but you are engaged in an edit war. I would strongly recommenced you revert your previous edit and move the discussion to the talk page.Garuda28 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)September 2019
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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. SharabSalam (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- When you make an edit and you get reverted dont revert back, go to the talk page and discuss instead; see WP:BRD, thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
SharabSalam (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
June 2021
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as DOTMLPF. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)