User talk:Kshilts

Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards
Hello, I understand that the word "organization" can be spelled either with a "s" or a "z" depending on where you live but the spelling used for the category uses an "s" so your change here broke the link at the bottom of the article. So, I'll correct the link again. Please be careful before reverting somebody else's change as my update was perfectly explained in my edit summary.--McSly (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Your recent editing history at Chiropractic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A war requires two opposing sides.
 * Why is it that no matter what I offered, you (and your various handles) found it unacceptable, including when I left your initial comment intact? Your intransigence toward making any attempt at compromise language is disappointing but revealing.
 * I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked.
 * Kshilts (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just go to the article talk page and discuss it. I'll remove the EW report, based on trust that you won't continue edit warring. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic
Kshilts, something to remember is that our WP:NPOV policy means that we describe something as independent reliable sources describe it, not as the article subject describes themselves. When editing, if you get reverted, the best way to handle it is to start a discussion on the article talk page. The preferred editing cycle is called BRD - Be bold and make an edit, but if it gets reverted, start a discussion on the talk page. You need to use sources to support your preferred version, especially if the current version is supported by references. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You got a warning message above about this, but continually making changes, even different ones, to the same article that get reverted is called an edit-war and strongly frowned upon here. If you revert more than 3 times in a 24-hour period (note, not a single day, but in a 24-hour period), you can end up being blocked.  You need to use the article talk page and discuss your changes.  Don't make further changes until you get consensus from other editors.  I'll warn you that getting consensus for your changes on the Chiropractic article will be tough.  There are lots of solid references to support the description and you're going to need to show why that is incorrect.  NPOV means that Wikipedia neutrally reflects what sources say without showing bias one way or the other, even when that's uncomfortable for some people.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have created a talk here for you. Use it and do not revert the article again or you will end up blocked for edit-warring.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:25, 31 March 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 21:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification
QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:SUMMARY
I tagged the original research you previously added to the section. Your changes added too much detail to the section that should be a summary. It appears you may have also added original research. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim1138 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You restored the text along with the unsourced text against consensus. See diff. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read this comment. There is no consensus to continue to restore the text. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Jim: You are incorrect on a number of assertions. (1) Mr. Quack stated that my additions made the WP chiropractic page's regulatory section too long because it had too much detail. I shorted it. (2) Mr. Quack pointed out that my edit describing the typical continuing education requirements (CEU hours) for chiropractors was not sourced. I provided the appropriate and authoritative source. (3) Your statement that I simply restored my edits without taking consensus guidance is inaccurate. If you read what I wrote you would have see that. It would be helpful if you would offer constructive advice (as Mr. Quack has) rather than a knee-jerk, total dismissal of my expertise. Kshilts (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This was the previous version last year. The current text is more than double in size of the previous version. Education is good information but I don't think making the section even longer would be compliant with WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chiropractic
Your recent editing history at Chiropractic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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.

Note that you don't get three free edits. You can be blocked for even one edit, and slow edit warring over several days can get you in trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)