User talk:2600:8800:1580:1E0:0:0:0:1000

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, at 2600:8800:1580:1E0:0:0:0:1000, has made edits to Thomas Paine that do not conform to our policies and guidelines and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider [ getting a username] to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:
 * Help contents – the main help page.
 * Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So, stop please. Argue your point on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's new material. It adds nothing. Justify the addition and get consensus on the talk page. You have it backwards my friend on how material is added. It was a bold addition, it was reverted. Stop readding it without talk page discussion. It's brand new material from a non-historian added yesterday. Stop edit warring and explain why you think that addition adds anything. 2600:8800:1580:1E0:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Your recent editing history at Thomas Paine 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a "content dispute". You are removing verified content and your edit summary is not adequate. If you want BRD to apply, then the D was yours immediately after I reverted your removal of said verified content. I could also simply cite you for vandalism, for removing apparently well-verified content. So yes, I guess I'm "threatening" you with a block, but it's more like cause and effect: if you walk outside when it's raining, you'll get wet. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, it's a content dispute. Yesterday, someone added content that was not well sourced or particularly useful. I reverted it. No, you don't get to say the second revert in your edit is the R in BRD cycle. It's very clear that the addition of new material yesterday was the bold edit. I removed it. If you think it should be re-added, make an argument that it added something. But restating Paine was anti-slavery because Hutchins said so in a pop-culture book is not scholarly or "verified content." It even says Hutchins is misquoting Paine in the edit summary of the addition. But okay, you do you. 01:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)