Ammendmentone

August 2012

Hello, I'm Cresix. I noticed that you made a change to an article, New York College of Health Professions, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Cresix (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at New York College of Health Professions. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"My apologies if I am replying in the wrong place. I'm new to Wikipedia editing but trying to catch on to the ways things work. You had removed the "controversy" section I had edited in stating that it lacked a reliable source. I did include two (now three) links to external sites which include student feedback concerning the college. I am guessing that you feel those do not meet the requirements of reliable sources. If that is the case, do you have any recommendations as to what could constitute a reliable source for this type of situation? There are no legal documents or similar items to include as these issues are managed within the walls of the school (and on social media sites). The issue is integral to the future of both the school and the student body and needs to be visible. Any advice is appreciated. Ammendmentone (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)"

You are correct that the sources are not reliable, but that is not the only issue. For what constitutes reliable sources, carefully read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Additionally, controversy sections that make up a substantial portion of a short article are generally violations of WP:WEIGHT. Most importantly, do not repeatedly revert contentious material without first discussing on the article's talk page and waiting for a consensus for your suggested changes. And be careful that you are not trying to use Wikipedia as a forum or soapbox. Also do not edit from multiple accounts or IP addresses. If you need additional help, place {{helpme}} on your talk page. Cresix (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I will certainly read through the links you have provided. The weight issue had not occurred to me. I intended to be concise but informative. I'll keep that in mind going forward. I will also use the article's Talk page to hash it out with the other editor(s). I do recognize that the topic I am trying to have included can get opinionated though my intent is to bring it to light neutrally, not with bias. I only edit using this account (ammendmentone). That helps me both with historical tracking and accountability. I have edited from multiple locations which no doubt have different IP addresses though. Is there really an issue of working from multiple computers even when using the same account info? Work, home and school have me in varied locations frequently. Do I actually need to edit from only a single physical space? Again, I appreciate your advice. Ammendmentone (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are logged in, there is no problem with using multiple computers. But it appears that you also edited from an IP while not logged in. That's not always forbidden (people sometimes forget to log in), but when use of multiple accounts/IPs occurs with controversial edits, big red flags go up. See WP:SOCK. If multiple accounts are used with deception or malice, Wikipedia usually can detect this and it can result in a block from editing. But not to worry at this point; you have not violated sockpuppetry rules. Cresix (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I was unaware (and am surprised to learn) that edits can be made without a logged in account. Is there a way I can go back and tag that edit to my account after-the fact? I realize that it remains only on the Talk page, but I'd prefer to own my own edits. Ammendmentone (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of; an admin might be able to, but it's not a big deal. You can change your signature on a talk page, but you can't change an edit summary. The main thing is that you are open about making the edit and not trying to deceive anyone. BTW, when you log in, you are given the option to remain logged in for a week or two. If you are the only person using the computer, that's a good way to avoid accidentally making edits while logged out. But if others use the computer you don't want anyone editing with your account. Another good habit to develop is to create a watchlist (see WP:WATCH) and checking it every time you've been away for awhile. You can't access your watchlist if you're not logged in. Cresix (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)