Alice.Piccolomini

May 2022

Your recent editing history at Samuel Guthrie (physician) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Greyjoy ^talk 03:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Further to the above, from WP:Plagiarism:

Free and copyrighted sources

N Copying from an unacknowledged source

• Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.

• The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.

N Copying from a source acknowledged in a poorly placed citation

• Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—then citing the source somewhere in the article, but not directly after the sentence or passage that was copied.

• This can look as though the editor is trying to pass the text off as their own. It can happen by accident when inline citations are moved around during an edit, losing text–source integrity. It can also happen when editors rely on general references listed in a References section, without using inline citations.

N Summarizing an unacknowledged source in your own words

• Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way, may also be a form of plagiarism, as well as a violation of the Verifiability policy.

• Summarizing a source in your own words does not in itself mean you have not plagiarized, because you are still relying heavily on the work of another writer. Credit should be given in the form of an inline citation.

Public domain works are subject to this. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)