User talk:Cottamkj

January 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Lydia Litvyak was changed by Cottamkj (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859789 on 2013-01-14T12:45:04+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Why as usual? I take it you have edited before.....under what username?

Lectonar (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

&#160;


 * Ok, so you were User:Kjcottam. What you have been told in 2009 still holds true: Wikipedia has to adhere to a neutral point of view, and not only one source. The source you use, your book, has a theory that is very different from mainstream theory. So it can't be used. Just reverting the article again and again will only get you blocked. Use the article talk-page to discuss any changes. And please, the next time, use my talk-page and not my userpage if you want to post something. Lectonar (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Lydia Litvyak. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Lydia Litvyak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. When the block expires, you are free to discuss changes to the article on the pertaining talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
If you feel like some pages are too sensationalist, you can be bold and change the content, but it might be better to engage other editors on the talk page of the article you are concerned about.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

&#160;