User talk:Outpost173

December 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ross Patterson. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Outpost173: To answer your question, I reverted your edits because they are wholly unsourced. Please see WP:sources before editing with unsourced information. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

my apologies, I am new to this and I am trying to figure out how to add sources

Your recent editing history at Ross Patterson 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. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is going on here. I try to make an edit and I get hit for not adding a source. I add a source and then you write me. I am not even sure if this is how to respond, but instead of assuming I am being malicious, could you please assist me so I am going about this the right way. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outpost173 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC) (copied from User talk:C.Fred)[reply]

The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule. It does not matter if your edits were malicious or well-intentioned: if you revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours, you are subject to being blocked.

The way forward is to discuss your edit to see if there's support for the change—or to find out what the objections are. The way to do that would be to add a comment (probably in a new section) to Talk:Ross Patterson. There we can focus the discussion on the edit: is it just to insignificant an event for the article? does it need independent sources? is there some other issue? It'll also get a wider range of viewpoints if it's at the article's talk page, rather than a user's. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User:Chrissymad‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for very quickly retracting the comment you made that was out of line. Editors make mistakes; the important thing is that we learn from them and move forward without repeating them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]