User talk:Raži

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Raži, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Stefan Molyneux does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Also, we use the "minor edit" check box only for things like tpyos, etc. Not when we remove references. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rule on Immigration and Crime[edit]

Your recent editing history 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 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 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Immigration and crime, you may be blocked from editing. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes[edit]

You may be blocked even if your don't break WP:3RR. Three reverts is a bright line, not an entitlement. You may also be blocked if you call good faith edits "vandalism". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now, as to to the latter (false accusation of vandalism), I observed that that too by myself. So, if I am blocked due to accidentally violating 3RR due to inexperience or due to possibly wrongly accusing someone for vandalism, I think you don't quite respect my good faith. Furthermore, I really think that the edit that I labeled as vandalism constitutes a borderline case. I am not quite sure of the good motivations of these people, but yeah, perhaps I should until I have the evidence. However, repeatedly censoring relevant + well-sourced information from the article by labeling it falsely (and probably dishonestly) as "OR" at some point must pass the threshold and become genuinely vandalism. In any case, I already apologized my too hasty judgment before anyone pointed to me about it.

I really don't know all the rules, I'm just trying to contribute to the content -- and unlike these censors, I know something about this subject. But I am trying to follow the rules.

--Raži (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]