| Revision as of 00:45, 6 February 2016 editMaster of Puppets (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,455 edits +← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:05, 6 February 2016 edit undoTiptoethrutheminefield (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,169 edits positive adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Hi, as noted above, please refrain from further ], as it will result in a temporary block. In terms of the information you're trying to add - do you have any ], ] sources to backup your change? ] 00:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | Hi, as noted above, please refrain from further ], as it will result in a temporary block. In terms of the information you're trying to add - do you have any ], ] sources to backup your change? ] 00:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :I think your edit to the population figure does make it closer to that most widely accepted by experts and revealed in expert sources. However, you are doing it without adding any of those sources, and since the 60,000 figure you are changing to 30,000 '''does''' have a source you are in essence faking the citation for 30,000 by giving it a source that says 60,000! You need to give a source or sources for the 30,000 figure. The sources for the 60,000 figure are of course general sources, not suitable to sustain an argument for 60,000 if presented against modern sources that are specifically about Londinium's population. ] (]) 21:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:05, 6 February 2016
February 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Londinium, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 00:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Londinium. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Dr. K. 00:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at London. Dr. K. 00:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Londinium 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 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. Dr. K. 00:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, as noted above, please refrain from further edit warring, as it will result in a temporary block. In terms of the information you're trying to add - do you have any reliable, verifiable sources to backup your change? m.o.p 00:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think your edit to the population figure does make it closer to that most widely accepted by experts and revealed in expert sources. However, you are doing it without adding any of those sources, and since the 60,000 figure you are changing to 30,000 does have a source you are in essence faking the citation for 30,000 by giving it a source that says 60,000! You need to give a source or sources for the 30,000 figure. The sources for the 60,000 figure are of course general sources, not suitable to sustain an argument for 60,000 if presented against modern sources that are specifically about Londinium's population. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)