User talk:Sjchurchill

November 2009
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.-208.54.90.70 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -Armcontrol45 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Iran and WMD article
Welcome! It looks like other users beat me to welcoming you and explaining sources. Nonetheless, you may still wish to read about citing sources and the lead section of an article.

I removed mention of U.N. Security Council resolutions because this is already found in the lead and I removed an unattributed "breaking out" statement because no source or attribution was provided and only including this opinion may be WP:UNDUE. I would encourage you to add sources for you information, and would like to point out that the lead acts as a summary, and shouldn't include redundant claims or every claim ever made by anyone.

I have also started a discussion on the talk page. You may wish to respond to other editors here and in your edit summaries as a courtesy to other editors so they can understand your editing rationale. Again, welcome!--71.156.89.167 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I replied to your discussion over on the talk page.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't restore this content without attributing the information to reliable sources.
 * Citing sources makes it much easier for other editors to verify your edits. There may also be some copyright concerns. These are all important Wikipedia policies which apply to all information in all Wikipedia articles.
 * There is currently a discussion on the talk page. You may wish to gain a consensus for your edits here first, which would be easiest if you could help supply the source(s) for your information. There is a minor learning curve to Wikipedia's culture, but it is well worth the time to learn.
 * Happy editing, --71.156.89.167 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Original research/Sourcing issues
To help clarify, Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

To be clear, this is an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

There is a wonderful tutorial about how to cite sources on Wikipedia here. I would strongly encourage you to read it to help your edits gain acceptance.

Cheers,--71.156.89.167 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)