User talk:2601:600:877F:AE1F:65F4:C2DD:2DE3:8C26

Peace Cross
I've reverted your change. It's a non-starter to argue that this should be included as "appropriately cited". It's not appropriately cited. It's cited to a primary source and does not indicate not ability of such a nickname. Either find reliable, secondary sources that support such a nickname demonstrating notability of such a nickname, or it will very likely be removed. If you disagree, the pathway forward isn't to edit war. If that continues, the article will almost certainly be protected. The pathway forward is to contribute to the discussion on the talk page of the article. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Referencing this change, it looks like you're the one starting an edit war by reverting a revert. The removed text was originally added in July. It obviously belongs in the article and nobody has proposed a different place in the article (you are free to do so). I understand your concerns about the citation. The editor who removed the text did not remove adjacent text for which there is no citation at all. It may be deliberate that there is no official name because that helps them circumvent the unconstitutionality of the monument. I've restored the change with additional references which were not hard to find. Hope this makes you happy.


 * Note: I tried to add three references, but Wikipedia disallowed this refererence. Apparently, no links to .online domains are allowed. Bizarre!


 * https://breakingnewsandreligion dot online/2021/06/28/the-bladensburg-satanic-peace-cross/ 2601:600:877F:AE1F:65F4:C2DD:2DE3:8C26 (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We can keep discussion here, rather then fracturing it onto multiple talk pages, thanks :) An edit war doesn't happen when a person makes a revert. Please read WP:EW. It isn't "obvious" it belongs in the article. There are websites which are blacklisted from being used here, and for good reason. I believe that's why that citation was blocked, though I could be wrong. I haven't looked at the blacklist in a long time. Your re-addition of this passage will most likely be reverted, perhaps by me after if I take the time to review the sources and consider it in relation to our policies/guidelines here. I noted before that you should be taking this up at the talk page rather than reverting again. You ignored that advice. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions. As I noted, this isn't the pathway forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As expected, the passage has been reverted again. This now makes seven times this year that an attempt has been made to force this passage into the article and it has been reverted. There is no consensus for inclusion of this material. Either get consensus to include it or it won't be included. Edit warring is not a pathway forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)