Ayon707

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Schutzstaffel 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ayon707, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ayon707! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel editing

I'll leave the discussion on the article for the ongoing argument of what is true, half true or not true, and focus here on how you can go about doing your edits safely. It appears that you have sources that support your earlier edits (although I've not been able to verify these as I don't have access to them), and it also appears that no one is questioning the reliability of your sources (which would be a whole different issue that would require a wider audience of editors), so I'll try to help you understand what you need to do. EyeTruth (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(Cont'd). There are three things to keep in mind about editing on WP: reliable sources for information (Wikipedia:Verifiability), relevancy of information (is it relevant enough to be worthy of mention in the article?), and consensus of fellow editors. Once you establish the first two, you will almost certainly get the third, although it may sometimes require a wider audience of editors which can take time (but you will almost certainly get the consensus eventually). Going by your reply to my comment in the article's talkpage, you seem to already have the first two ironed out, so what you need in order to move forward is to apply this WP policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. When reliable sources irreconcilably diverge on an issue, then the differing views will have to be presented in a balanced way in the article. Here is a non-related example of how to go about it: Battle of Prokhorovka#Soviet (see 2nd paragraph in that subsection). EyeTruth (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpAyon707 (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this issue until you find sources (see WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiability), else it will just be a repeating circle of posts. You may be right, but what you're saying is not verifiable (at least, you haven't made it verifiable). If Wikipedia conformed to the way you're pushing your arguments, there would be no Wikipedia today. The purpose for which I started this discussion doesn't seem to be relevant anymore, so I'll continue any response in the article's talkpage. EyeTruth (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)