Thanks for the greetings!
DYK for My Beloved World
|On 1 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Beloved World, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that promotional efforts for U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor's best-selling memoir My Beloved World caused the time of Vice President Joe Biden's second-term swearing-in to be changed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/My Beloved World. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Your recent editing history at Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You appear to be serially reverting constructive edits that I've made. Allow me to suggest that you take the issues to the talk page. Your behavior could be seen to be as an attempt to extend a content dispute on You didn't build that to other pages which are unrelated. aprock (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize if you've interpreted my edits to be personal or merely due to the existence of one particular content dispute. This is not my intention. However, our discussion has indicated you may not fully understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and how the relevant policies should be applied in editing. This is concerning to me because I, like many others, want Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia and an excellent and accurate resource. Consequently, I looked into some of your prior contributions to determine if mistakes had been made elsewhere, and if any were found I attempted to correct them. Again, please recognize that my intent is not malicious. — Fishicus (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it takes a fair amount of dispute resolution to really get a solid grasp of the nuances of sourcing. I suggest you take some time reading and/or participating in WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:BLPN to get a better sense of the nuances of sourcing. I am happy to go over any specific issues or concerns you have about any edits or contributions I've made. I generally don't take wikipedia editing personally, far too much drama on here already. aprock (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)