User talk:71.112.246.204

November 2019
Hello, I'm DimensionQualm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. DimensionQualm (talk) 05:06, 6 November 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.
 * Hello. Not experimenting and am not in need of sandbox.  Sorry, but I find your tone a bit condescending.  My edits for the article are *indeed* constructive, taken in context, as background information to allow for possible motivations for the actions of U.S. military personnel within the subject matter of the article.  Your weak explanations that my edits are not relevant are as incorrect as they are insufficient.  The current article mentions the "inhuman cruelty of Imperial Japanese forces" as possible reasons for trophy-taking.  Some of the worst examples of Japanese cruelty toward American prisoners took place on the Bataan Death March, one of my added references.  Furthermore, if you had read the entire article, you might have noticed that the Bataan Death March is mentioned in this article, under the heading 'Revenge', which further justifies my reference edit.  That the Japanese committed war crimes against the U.S. military, some of whom later sought vengeance through trophy-taking justifies the reference to Japanese War Crimes.  And if you are going to attack my reference edits, please note that before I edited this article, there were already references in the article to Japanese biochem warfare experimentation labs Unit 100, Unit 516, Unit 731, where some of the most unspeakable cruelty by the Japanese toward allied prisoners took place, which parallel my references as reasons why U.S. and allied military personnel may have found motivation for committing their own war crimes as vengeance against those previously committed by the Japanese.71.112.246.204 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are violating Wikipedia policy such as MOS:SEEALSO, WP:NOTSEEALSO, and WP:BRD. If it is relevant, then it should be mentioned in the ARTICLE with a source and reference per WP:VERIFY instead of a meaningless see also. You are engaging in WP:Synthesis. Even by your very own argument in the revenge section, it very clearly states "However, that type of knowledge did not necessarily lead to revenge mutilations." Your logical fallacy consisting of whataboutism and tu quoque does not help your argument. Quit edit-warring and get WP:Consensus for your edits or you will be blocked. DimensionQualm (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. DimensionQualm (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)