Jump to content

User talk:Billfraz1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2020[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. Guy (help!) 16:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that conspiracy theorist works are considered unreliable sources (see WP:RS). In the case where it's very notable and a mention WP:DUE, the coverage should be that of a reliable independent source (that then usually also treat the claims as conspiracy theories, a fact the Wikipedia article would also summarize). Also see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS: once your edits are contested, asking not to remove them and reinstating them is not the solution, you should instead attempt to seek consensus at the relevant article's talk page (every article has a talk page). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Trial of George Zimmerman 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]