184.103.204.14

August 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to List of mass hysteria cases, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Whisperjanes (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at List of mass hysteria cases 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Whisperjanes (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi there, you have reverted for the fourth time, breaking the 3 revert rule. I invite you to reverse your own most recent reversion so that you are not going against Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, you may be blocked. (Just to clarify - this is not personal or a threat, it is just how Wikipedia policy works).

Also, Wikipedia is based on rough consensus. Would you be willing to talk about this with other editors, so that everyone can come to some sort of consensus? I have explained in my edit summary and on your talk page above why this edit does not seem to meet Wikipedia policy. I have now started a discussion on the talk page, so please address these concerns there. Thank you! - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Also, sorry, I didn't realize you posted on the talk page after your fourth revert, since it was under an older section. Either way, I started a new section at the bottom, and the above still applies) - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:184.103.204.14 reported by User:Whisperjanes (Result: ). Thank you. Whisperjanes (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

---