Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to
Nicholas Wade. Your edits could be interpreted as
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please
cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's
talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use
your sandbox. Thank you.
ElusiveTaker
(talk)
14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Nicholas Wade, you may be
blocked from editing.
Sheep (
talk •
he/him)
14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at
Nicholas Wade.
ElusiveTaker
(talk)
14:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/03/china/china-lab-leak-theory-department-of-energy-assessment-intl-hnk-mic/index.html Jras1868 ( talk) 14:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Nicholas Wade 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to
Nicholas Wade. Your edits could be interpreted as
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please
cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's
talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use
your sandbox. Thank you.
ElusiveTaker
(talk)
14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Nicholas Wade, you may be
blocked from editing.
Sheep (
talk •
he/him)
14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at
Nicholas Wade.
ElusiveTaker
(talk)
14:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/03/china/china-lab-leak-theory-department-of-energy-assessment-intl-hnk-mic/index.html Jras1868 ( talk) 14:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Nicholas Wade 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)