User talk:Vrp609

Welcome!

Hello, Vrp609, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Law & Policy Review

Hi, You boldly added a list of important articles published by the journal and that addition was reverted. Per WP:CYCLE the next step now is not to keep reverting each other, but to discuss this issue on the article talk page. Hope this helps! --Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add this a Notable articles section - it was there already. I merely updated it to reflect more articles. Further, many other law reviews have these sections as well.

Vrp609 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Yale Law & Policy Review 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 article's 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. GAB^gab 21:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information. Why didn't you send this same notice to the User who deleted the page's information and reverted my changes three times in the 24-hour period? Vrp609 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the BRD model, once you make a bold edit and are reverted, it's ideal to discuss said edit on the talk page. Randykitty invited you to discuss the edit, and has already left a note on BRD himself. I also recommend you read this widely-cited Wikipedia essay. Regards, GAB^gab 21:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vrp609. You have new messages at Randykitty's talk page.
Message added 22:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]