User talk:Mrklp5716

Reproductive coercion article

Stop removing reliably sourced content from the Reproductive coercion article, like you did with this edit; it's an edit that contradicts the vast majority of research in this area. And unless you have solid WP:Reliable sources proving that material wrong, your removal of that material should not be considered valid in any way. We go by what WP:Reliable sources state, not personal opinion. And you should also cease reverting, per WP:Edit warring, a policy that can lead to a Wikipedia editor being WP:Blocked when it is violated. I've noted your edits at Talk:Reproductive coercion; that page is where you can make your case. Simply comment in the section I started there or create a new section there about what you dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the "reliably sourced content" I removed wasn't actually supported by the citation and you have since acknowledged that yourself and subsequently removed it yourself. Of course you didn't do this until after you had restored this inaccurate claim on two separate occasions without even bothering to check if it was indeed "reliably sourced content" as you originally claimed. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the claims and the sources you're defending. Mrklp5716 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mrklp5716, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mrklp5716! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Zad68 20:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to emphasize that edit-warring isn't just a certain number of reverts in a certain period of time, it's reverting back to your preferred version without discussion or ignoring discussion that raises reasonable policy-based concerns. Also, primary sources should not be used to counter secondary sources where available. Thanks... Zad68 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advice?

would you be open to hearing some advice? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Mrklp5716 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]