User talk:Mcmahon441

CS1 error on Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/43&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Mcmahon441&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1165555601 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kellogg,_Hansen,_Todd,_Figel_%26_Frederick&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1165555601%7CKellogg,%20Hansen,%20Todd,%20Figel%20&%20Frederick%5D%5D Ask for help])

September 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jury duty, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Could you please explain why my cited additions are not constructive? You are removing factual information that is being cited. Mcmahon441 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations must be to a reliable source. When a source disclaims the reliability of their information, as Above the Law does here, then it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the citation to law360/law.com? Other firm pages cite to AboveTheLaw frequently. For example, see Kirkland, Cravath, Latham pages. Mcmahon441 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. All that's being addressed here is your edit, which you seem to be preoccupied with making to this random law firm. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Making a note here so others can see the citations and history. Also see how the reverting editor have been editing other law firm pages and removing any talk of rankings or prestige. Mcmahon441 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing that to the extent of removing unsourced law school rankings that you added. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And there was no citation to law360/law.com in your edit. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)