User talk:94.195.86.16

Your recent editing history 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.

The veracity disputed section cannot be shown by the original link to symantec support pages, nor to any of the subsequent links since they moved the content several times.

Assuming that symantec would continue to move any references, using a reference to symantec is pointless.

The only other way to show the section's veracity therefore, is to have this independently verified - by wikipedia arbitration, if nothing can be agreed prior to that. This would, for example, involve repeating the described conditions and showing whether or not described symptoms appear. If so, an independent reference could then be provided. 94.195.86.16 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

“ The only other way to show the section's veracity therefore, is to have this independently verified - by wikipedia arbitration, if nothing can be agreed prior to that. This would, for example, involve repeating the described conditions and showing whether or not described symptoms appear. If so, an independent reference could then be provided. ”

The answer is no. That would violate WP:OR. The following is from the lead of the article.

“ This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. ”

I hope you receive this message, instead of using yet another IP address to publish the information. I am currently appealing for a block on all of your IP addresses. TechOutsider (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please revert

Please revert your last change to Norton AntiVirus. You are edit warring by repeatedly adding the same unsourced material without getting any support from other editors. If you don't respond, you will most likely be blocked from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

---