Spayne0870

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Peer pressure shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on my talk page were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. I've moved your message to the bottom of the page. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. If you have any questions about contributing to the encyclopedia, please feel free to ask me, I'll be happy to help. Thank you. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again - I noticed on the two messages you left on my talk page that you did not quite sign your messages correctly. Whenever you leave a message on a talk page for an article, a user, or a Wikipedia topic (pages that begin with "Talk:" "User talk:" or "Wikipedia talk:" respectively) you should sign your comment using 4 tildes (like this: ~~~~) that will produce a signature including date & time of your post. You should not use the signature shortcut in articles. Hopefully that helps. (No need to leave a message about this on my talk page, if you want to reply you can do it just beneath this message.) —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert to Peer Pressure

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

First, thank you for your interest in improving the Peer pressure article -- it definitely needs help. Second, being a new editor can be a daunting task especially when you have grand ambitions.

Now to your specific edit. One of the core concepts of Wikipedia is verifiability which basically states that every reader should be able to verify every claim made in every article. Ideally with an online source but obviously that's not always possible so of course it's perfectly acceptable to just use a published source that is unavailable online. So your source was probably fine.

My next comment is a more difficult one to get across. You went into a good bit of detail with your edit. That right there is a warning flag. We are a general purpose encyclopedia and not a "how-to" or a technical encyclopedia (like Grove's or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). When an edit has that much detail with the kind of content you provided it really looks like one specific model or theory is being presented with the implication that it is the best/only model/theory around. I'm sure other textbooks and published material would express those concepts differently or might even contradict what your source stated. We cannot go through and give that much detail to every single approach that exists out there even if we just limit ourselves to the most highly regarded.

Instead, keeping in mind the "general" part of the what Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia, what we prefer is when an editor summarizes a summary from a reliable secondary source. So assuming that your textbook is a reliable source the ideal approach would be take that information and summarize it. If the particular approach the textbook takes is itself notable (discussed in detail by at least two independent reliable sources) then we can create a new article for it and go into greater detail there with just the summary and link in this article.

Does all that make sense? This article is not in an area of my expertise so I was mostly going on how your edit felt after having seen thousands of similar edits that have gone awry. My point is that I could be misreading your content but it looked very much like the kind of problematic edit I detailed above.

So ideally if you could find a way to summarize the point of your edit without making it too heavily promotional-looking that would be great. Then as other models/theories/approaches get added to the article in a similar fashion then we will achieve our goal of a general look at the topic.

If you have any more questions or comments please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! SQGibbon (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)