User talk:ShanonFitzpatrick

February 2017
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Emmett Till, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emmett Till. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (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 notice boards.
 * 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.

Case Request
The correct place to address your concerns is at Talk:Emmett Till or at the venues listed at WP:DR. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content. Given that an RFC regarding the exact issue is currently running, I strongly recommend you allow a community consensus to be established through that process before attempting any further dispute resolution processes. Mkdw  talk 00:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And just so you know, none of the content DR processes, Third Opinion (which isn't available anyway due to the number of editors involved in the discussion), Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or Formal Mediation, will accept a case while the RFC is pending. Most RFC's stay open for at least 30 days and then beyond that so long as discussion is continuing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)