User talk:Fightclub10

July 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Please stop your destructive reversals. If any edit has an issue, you can reverse one by one, with your reason next to it. Every edit I did was justified by my edit comments including:
 * - Intro was too long and does not comply with Wiki policy
 * - Some content had no citations
 * - Some content did not comply with wiki polices
 * - I added a new book under bibliography
 * Please explain your reversals and justify them line by line.
 * Are you an admin??? if not do not act like one. Fightclub10 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have over 40,000 edits, putting me within the top #2600 (top 0.01%) active Wikipedia users ever, you've made less than 100 edits total, which most Wikipedia editors would consider inexperienced. I'm a lot more familiar with Wikipedia policy than you. Your intepretations of Wikipedia policy are very different from my own (and probably the community at large). The lead was arguably not too long for an article of that length, and the removal of the controversy section from the lead was not due, given that this was a major part of Lenz's public reputation during his lifetime. The kidnapping stuff was also due to be included in the controversy section, and I don't think it reflects badly on Lenz, given that he was not at fault in the situation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have modified the article to add the controversy section back to the lead, and re-added to kidnapping section but altered the wording to emphasise that Lenz was not at fault. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)