User talk:ToddlerMommy1983

Welcome!
Hello, ToddlerMommy1983, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! 03:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

August 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 03:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at MMR vaccine controversy 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. McSly (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Couple of general points
Hi there, I know you're a new editor here and I though I'd leave some comments that might help you with future edits on Wikipedia. The welcome message above gives you some pointers and things to consider but sometimes a more personal message with specific thoughts can work better. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but implicit in that is that edits need to follow the policies of Wikipedia or they will be reverted or changed. I'll put links to the various policy pages throughout this post for you to read and get a better understanding of what they mean. Wikipedia is a community that relies on 5 main principles, or pillars, that drive all other policies and guidelines.

One critical policy is to not use original research (or OR). That means that edits can't be based on the personal beliefs and views of the editor. This applies to more than just facts, but most importantly to opinions and conclusions. Instead, edits must have the facts, opinions, conclusions and views of other parties as found in published sources. Something to be careful is what we call synthesis. Basically, it means taking a series of statements and drawing conclusions from them not supported/stated in a published source. A good example is taking a court case and using that court case to draw a conclusion. Questions about OR can be taken to the original research noticeboard.

My comments about published sources lead to another important policy, verification. Everything in Wikipedia that's not uncontroversial must be verifiable so readers can look for themselves where the statement came from and the full context. Obviously, we want to always put things in the correct context and avoid misuse. When searching for sources, it's vital to keep in mind that you need to use reliable sources. That term has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and it will be extremely helpful for you to read through that page. The short version is avoid self-published sources (such as self-published books or web-sites), blogs and purely partisan sources. Questions about verification/sourcing can be taken to the reliable source noticeboard.

The last policy that's key is neutral point of view or NPOV. It means covering topics by presenting views in a neutral manner. This doesn't mean giving every possible view of a topic though. NPOV means we DO cover various views but we MUST identify clearly views that have relatively little support in reliable, secondary sources and make sure that we don't give minority views too much coverage (or weight) in our articles. For example, some people insist that they don't have to pay taxes in the US for various reasons. We have articles on those views but always clearly note that they have been thoroughly rejected. In articles on Us taxes we note that tax protestors exist and link to that article but that's about all we do. Giving them any more coverage in an article on a larger topic is undue weight, even though you can easily find countless websites pushing this scheme or another to skip paying takes. It gets back to the question of what is or is not a reliable source. Questions about NPOV can be taken to the NPOV noticeboard.

While editing, Wikipedia works on a consensus model. Editors should follow a pattern called WP:BRD which means Bold, Revert and Discuss. An editor is Bold and makes an edit but someone objects and Reverts the edit. One of them should then start a Discussion on the talk page about the change and see if they can't resolve the issues. Discussions MUST always focus on the edits and not on the editor. Personal attacks directed towards other editors do not help things. If you keep trying to force your change into the article, you can end up being blocked from editing for too many reverts or edit-warring. The bright-line for blocking is more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. But you can also be blocked for repeated attempts to push the edit into the article over a period of time where you aren't doing more than 3 reverts. If you think someone has crossed the 3RR line, you can post on the edit war noticeboard.

Thanks and I hope you continue editing here! Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)