User talk:72.66.73.129

August 2018
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Greetings listen I admit I got carried away. But I would like to know why a statement like that that shows bias is allowed on that page when other Congress pages do not have statements that offer negative information on the controlling party. Also what part of it was Vandalism I did not intend to vandalize also if you look at the history many other people have said the statement is biased and the user in question that keeps posting it keeps putting it back. I would like to know what I have done wrong and I would like to work things out with you to prevent any unnecessary problems in the future. Thank you.
 * OK here's the thing. I'm an admin, and when I wear my admin hat I don't really look at the content of things, I look at the content of edits. As far as I could tell, but I only skimmed it, you removed stuff that said "the 115th Congress got very little done" or something to that effect. If that statement is true, and verified, what's the problem? I'm sure there've been plenty of other Congresses that suffered from partisan problems or whatever, and if that's not in the article maybe it should be added--if it's neutral and verified. If it is verified that this Congress got nothing done, you can't say it's biased--it just may be true. But the more important thing is you can't be fighting over this in this way. You can take it up on the talk page, you can present arguments, you can do lots of things, but edit warring is not something you can do. That edit warring, that's a kind of vandalism--if I had a templated warning for "only warring for edit warring" I would have used that, but in the end that doesn't matter. So, my advice to you, for "in the future", is to try and discuss things on the talk page. And from experience I can tell you that it happens that one firmly believes something and then discovers that maybe it is different. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I don't wish to talk about this ordeal anymore. I at first did not know how to access people's talk pages because it said that it didn't exist. I don't mean any disrespect to you but I don't wish to talk about this anymore. I just feel somewhat idiotic for doing what I did. Now remember if the edit is removed by someone else that is not me other people have done it before and they will do it again. If you were to ask my opinion about it it's only going to create trouble for admins like yourself. People are going to come to same conclusions I have and this user I found out by looking has been warned multiple times for edit warring. So I won't do any more edits from now on and I do thank you for the advice you gave me. Please don't respond to this I just want to forget about it. Once again thanks for the advice that I will not forget thank you and good luck.72.66.73.129 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You take care too. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)