User talk:USAismisunderstood

June 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Operation Northwoods 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 get 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. -- GB fan 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should also look read this section of the WP:Verfiability policy. It says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The information you want to add has been challenged and the edit summaries said you will need to provide a cite for the information. Do not make the changes again without adding a reliable source that directly support your change. -- GB fan 10:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jus da fax 03:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do[edit]

You told me on my talk page that you are new and wanted me to tell you if there was anything else you could do. So far your edits have been a bold edit to the article and reverting 3 different editors a total of 5 times along with 4 edits to user talk pages. What you can do is stop reverting the article and go to the article's talk page, Talk:Operation Northwoods to discuss the changes you want to make to the article. You will need to present sources that you believe support your changes. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before starting the discussion so you have a better idea about what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. If you change the article back to what you think it should say, you will probably be blocked from editing. There is already a possibility that you may be blocked as were warned about edit warning and you continued to revert after that warning. -- GB fan 10:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question on my talk page, you need to go to the article talk page, Talk:Operation Northwoods. Start a discussion there about the changes you want to make. You need to include the source and discuss why you think it verifies the changes you want to make. Also if you haven't already, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources so you understand how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. Pay particular attention to the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section as the source you are discussing is a primary source which in a lot of cases is discouraged on Wikipedia. -- GB fan 13:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again in response to your latest message on my talk page, STOP EDIT WARRING. -- GB fan 14:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be equally blunt, STOP REVERTING. Wikipedia works on a consensus model where edits that are disputed lead to discussion on the article talk page. Only when that discussion results in a consensus view is the edit made to the article. You are continually reverting to your version and you WILL end up blocked from editing. That's not going to help your case. If you disagree with the consensus on the talk page, there are places where you can raise the issue. Given that GB fan and I both view your edits as original research, you might consider asking at the Original Research Noticeboard and see what people think. Seriously though - stop reverted, start discussing or you will end up blocked which is not what we want. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:USAismisunderstood reported by User:GB fan (Result: ). Thank you. -- GB fan 13:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USAismisunderstood, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi USAismisunderstood!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Operation Northwoods. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked for two weeks as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Extended to 2 weeks because of the socking. Any more of that and the next block will probably be indefinite. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased this block to indefinite because of continuing sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]