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. 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. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The next time you want to do a QPQ at DYK, you could try Paleohydrology. I wrote the article because the topic cropped up in another article I wrote, Lake Aguelmame Sidi Ali, and there seemed to be a gap in Wikipedia's scientific coverage. However, it was a topic on which I knew nothing, and the article would benefit from a knowledgeable eye. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I see someone reviewed the article within minutes of my nominating it at DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, let'ts talk about this. The external image works for me. I suggest that if it does not appear on your computer, it may be a browser issue. At any rate, the picture is also shown in the cited article, if you care to read it. As for the exclusion of Burmese amber from the main article, I cannot see any reasoning. The cited article does not raise any question about its ineligibility as a "true" amber. As noted, the discovery of amber at depth in Myanmar less then 10 years ago is significant. I would remind you that if you do not agree with cited edits and additions such as I made, that Wikipedia is a democratic project. If you feel there is a need to revert a change such as I made, make a good argument. I feel my edits are justified, useful, and help keep the article up to date. I have not rolled back your latest reversion, but I trust that you will. Let's not drag this out. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)