User talk:2404:4408:404B:2D00:C473:806D:38E9:FC4

October 2019
Hello, I'm Calton. I noticed that you recently removed content from David Irving without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note that the message EXPLICITLY references consensus: you don't get to override that. Calton &#124; Talk 14:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to David Irving. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Samf4u (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at David Irving 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. El_C 15:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 15:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

First, you violated the 3 revert rule, anyway, which you were warned about. But beyond that, your edits are clearly disruptive, ignoring long-held consensus, which is what Wikipedia operates under — not by fiat. El_C 15:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

No thanks. At any case, you cannot be reinserting your edits against multiple editors indefinitely — that is disruptive in, and of itself, and is not permitted. El_C 15:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I gave clear reasoning for my edit, and challenged anyone disagreeing to explain why, but not one was attempted or offered

A reminder:

'''NOTE: The consensus from talk page discussions has been that modern reliable sources generally do not state that David Irving is a "historian" and as a result the term "author" is used. Please do not change this without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page --> and Holocaust denier '''

There you have it: if you don't like it, it's up to YOU get consensus for a change, not for anyone else to satisfy your demands. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)