User talk:Tdadamemd 018

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tdadamemd 018. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tdadamemd 018, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tdadamemd 018! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ken Mattingly, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. 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. DonIago (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easy to verify then it should be easy enough to source. Thank you for doing so! DonIago (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latest feedback given in edit summary. You may have a solid position you are arguing from. But it is clear that you are not being consistent. Over at the article, I explain how if you were consistent, then you would delete ALL unsourced facts.

This discussion is pertinent to everyone with an interest in this article. You persist in deleting the info I've added. And if you are on the proper side of Wikipedia Policy, then I would be ok with it. But the way you are going about this leaves no breadcrumbs for everyone else who might be interested in the stuff being added.

In short, this discussion belongs on the Talk page of that article. Unless your goal is to not only uphold WP, but also to suppress valuable info.--Tdadamemd 018 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No editor is required to remove unsourced information. When I see unsourced information that I feel is appropriate for removal, I remove it. If you feel there is unsourced information that should be removed, you are welcome to do so. The removal will then be challenged, or not. Or you can start a thread at the article's Talk page ahead of the removal.

In any event, I've started a discussion at the article's Talk page. I find it a little confusing that you say you feel there should be a discussion there, but did not initiate one. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ken Mattingly 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. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]