User talk:70.88.118.70

March 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Easley, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2020 (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.

My editing is not disruptive, nor is it vandalism. It is an effort to combat vandalism. There has been a consistent effort to remove mention of the fact that Governor Easley has been convicted of a felony, and that he is the first and, to date, only Governor of North Carolina to have been convicted of a felony. Six previous edits have removed this factual information and the references that support it. They are
 * 1) Ncpoleditor    12 March 2020
 * 2) Dugannashhh     5 February 2020
 * 3) 184.74.152.62  11 August 2019
 * 4) 2606:a000:4cc0:20f0:c95c:ae6:4e72:fa45  13 November 2018
 * 5) 2606:a000:4cc0:20f0:c95c:ae6:4e72:fa45  12 November 2018
 * 6) 2606:a000:4cc0:20f0:c95c:ae6:4e72:fa45  12 November 2018

Note that some of these were reverted by others as disruptive or vandalism.

I suspect your claim that my edit was disruptive is a further attempt to keep factual information out of this article, unless your claim is not related to content, but instead formatting or otherwise. In either case, please provide details to clarify your claim.

Your recent editing history at Mike Easley 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. Sundayclose (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2020 (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.

Easley
New information does not go in the lead. See WP:LEAD. Add it to the appropriate section of the article, and keep it brief, per WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume that "in the lead" refers to the summary paragraph at the start. The information about Governor Easley's felony conviction is not new. Moreover, I claim it is the second most significant reason for his fame, behind being elected governor. I claim that it is as distinctive as being the first Catholic who was elected as governor of NC. When he passes and his obituary is written, it is a certainty that his status as the first governor of NC to be convicted of a felony will be included.

The talk page at Mike Easley shows recent posts from MikeBlas that suggests some edits may have been made that unintentionally affected others. In particular, edits by SundayClose that revert edits without adequate explanation. I don't entirely follow the series of posts there by @Mikeblas. It appears he read and responded to replies not visible at this moment.
 * By new information, I mean information not explained and sourced later in the article. That is a moot point now, as I added the information to the body of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)