User talk:86.158.101.104

Your recent editing history 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. on Whiteley --Abd (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Whiteley and Fareham (borough)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, in attempting to add material regarding a legal claim that involves a Councillor, you have edit warred in the two articles, violating Wikipedia policy. Initially, your edits were reverted by User:Whiteley Matters, who also edit warred in an improper manner and who did not properly explain his or her reverts; however, the material you were inserting was not appropriate for Wikipedia.

As the newspaper article you cite reported, The claim is not related to Cllr Woodward's council work. The Councillor is not mentioned in the articles, and the detail that this person is facing an unrelated legal claim, while it is sourced, is even less notable. Your edits were reverted, once noticed, by two independent editors, with better edit summaries: [1] and [2], both by administrator SarekOfVulcan, and [3], and by experienced editor Snigbrook. In the future, if you encounter opposition to your insertions of material in articles, do not edit war, but discuss the proposed edits in the Talk page attached to the article. If you cannot find consensus with other editors, follow the dispute resolution process. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)