Your recent editing history at Network TwentyOne 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—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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

One does not get the change the medical guideline without discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as RS/N (well use of word "primarily" rather than "mainly"). As it's written the guideline contradicts policy. --Icerat (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the process. --Icerat (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy deletion request for John A. Wise, as it doesn't seem to be an unambiguous attack page, and the now-dead links may have been relevant at the time. However, it does seem to have a non-neutral slant, and I think there is a good argument for non-notability too as there don't seem to be any independent sources discussing the man himself - only the company. So I've taken it for a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Wise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]