User talk:Rovergirl1

SOrry about the edit. I will fix and resubmit with a source pointing to the revenue claim.

Thank you very much, Mr. Huon. I have fixed the faulty citation that was not supported by the given sources, and reinserted the line about OgilvyInteractive being named "Best Interactive Ad Agency" by Adweek while Sandom ran it. Seems relevant to me.Rovergirl1 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on J. G. Sandom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an edit war, I am trying to work with the suggestions given to me. It does seem to me that there is only one opinion however, those of the editors and there is no real discussion to agree on the content. I am new to this and have a few things that need updating on wiki. JG Sandom's info, horse slaughter, horse rescues and a few more that I want to get to. I also didn't realize the view history was different from talk so missed a few prompts to "talk". I sincerely apologize.Rovergirl1 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an edit war. But now you know not to make the same mistake again, so it's ok. I'm happy to walk you through things. When someone reverts your edit, I suggest that you post in the talk page and wait. Patience is key. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rovergirl1, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Rovergirl1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You are engaged in an edit war on J.G. Sandom. If you continue edit warring, you almost certainly will be blocked from editing. Please discuss proposed edits on the article's talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring how? My changes were posted in the history section for review days ago and now I am trying to update the page accordingly. Working from iPhone which is difficult and changes aren't sticking. Please advise how i should proceed as I am following every protocol that has been suggested to me by the editors. Rovergirl1 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. This is not the first time you've been warned about edit warring, and, frankly, your apologies are strained, as is your claim that you are unaffiliated with Sandom - just someone who likes his books. Regardless, you risk being blocked by your continued edit warring and non-neutral edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your recent editing history at J. G. Sandom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. I have explained at Talk:J. G. Sandom why your changes are not appropriate. Huon (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]