Oh, it does seem like you got way farther than just editing something without a source.

It's not easy to make a contended edit, especially against a more experienced editor.

Here's a few tips:

1- Don't focus so much on the edit, but focus on the discussion page. As mentioned, edit warring is a no-no.

The core of edit warring is the 3RV rule, so if you must discuss through edits, space them out over time to avoid 3RV over 24 hours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_thr...)

The rule is biased towards change, so whoever makes the first edit, will hold the advantage in terms of punitive action. However, you may invoke a request for someone else to revert to the last stable version.

2- In general there is a lot of policy to read, but that goes for any tool worth using no? And it's what provides some sort of stability to the whole project.

Wikipedia is a computer system like any other, but some code may be enforced by humans (bureocrats). You just have to learn the code if you want to edit, the expectation that it would be easy to edit wikipedia was actually true in the begginning, but as it grows larger, it will prioritize stability over growth and make editing harder.

Also, you can see my unpublished essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia...

It's outdated, I'd have to clarify on the punitive offensive bias and the modern content defensive bias. At the time I didn't have a clear understanding of the RVV (or it may have been different).

But the idea of a slower, edit based discussion is there.

3- Tags are a powerful tool, as powerful as policies and guidelines. They are much more succint, and do not require so much effort on your part. Consider the WP:FV tag

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Taggin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_fai...

If you just apply the tag (or ask someone else to apply the tag), you expend almost 0 effort, but are backed by a custom so big and common that it merited the creation of a tag. No need to link to policy, its presence is self evident and self explanatory.

It also doesn't delete the content, and doesn't count as a reversal, it progresses the state of the article, if it goes uncontested for a couple of days, you can then proceed with removal much more safely. Even if it doesn't, it's not a bad result if someone makes a claim and it has a {{failed verification}} tag, the existence of their position is clarified, but it is weakened, which is in line with the WP policy of Documenting the controversy and letting the facts speak for themselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the...

Feel free to ask for help in my talk page when editing a page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri

Or better yet, publish an edit request, and tag me or notify me in my talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests 4 Finally, policy wise, it's common for sources to be used to advanced views not explicit in them, this constitutes original research, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

or I could just do something better with my time :/

so much effort all to fix what should be a clear and objective inaccuracy