User talk:Altm1987

Consensus / reversion / reliable sources
Hi - please don't revert edits when they've been challenged on the basis of prior consensus on the article talk page. See Consensus, which explains this important element of Wikipedia policy. Reverting in such circumstances is considered impolite, and when done repeatedly may be considered disruptive or edit warring.

It's also important to review our policy Identifying reliable sources. Website like CounterPunch are not reliable for factual claims made in Wikipedia's own voice. You can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you have questions on this. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

3rr policy
Your recent editing history at White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) 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 a dead end, you can 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.