User talk:Flawliss

Your recent editing history at Agnosticism 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. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Flawliss, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Lots of material here to help you --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

To be clear, two editors came to this article and reverted the sentence the pair of you have been edit warring about. It is not supported by third party citations and text cannot stand without that. There are at least two/three editors opposed to your text. Now make a case on the talk page, supported by citations and if you don't get support call an RfC to get other editors involved. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final attempt/warning

You might want to read up on WP:OWN. Two editors - both experienced coming to the only article you have edited have said the words are weasel words. I've made it very clear several times that I am not arguing about wording (which you seem to want to do, just as on the talk page you want to engage in long discussions about the subject) but about the fact that it doesn't have third party sourcing. It is your interpretation of the primary sources and that is not permitted. Given your long term protagonist three editors have rejected now your text. Continuing to impose it with highly misleading edit summaries is a slow edit war and you could easily end up with a block or a topic ban. If you are convinced you are right then follow the process to create an RfC that will bring other editors in, or use the dispute resolution process. I've already said this once above and several times on the talk page but you evidently either don't want to hear it or aren't prepared to do the basic checks (using the links I've given you) on how wikipedia works. Now please stop trying to impose your perspective on primary sources on the article and follow process. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]