Kwm1975

November 2014

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Wallace Fard Muhammad, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Widr (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Wallace Fard Muhammad 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.— BranStark (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Kwm1975, the Wallace Fard Muhammad page is not for Nation of Islam dogma. We are supposed to use reliable sources, which means works written by academics. Your version has been reverted by more than one editor, and had a POV tag quickly added by another. I am not saying that there is not some legitimate content, but it should be discussed. The section on the FBI is just assertion after assertion that's barely supported by anything. Many of your statenments are couched in highly argumentative language. Please remember WP:3RR and read WP:NPOV. Paul B (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (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:Kwm1975 reported by User:BranStark (Result: ). Thank you. — BranStark (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)