User talk:Michael.alexander.kaufmann

July 2020
Hi Michael.alexander.kaufmann! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Trumpism that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emir of Wikipedia, in fact I thought is was a minor edit because I "just" undid an edit of Bolt9094 04:38, 24 July 2020‎. Thanks for the heads up!

Please do not remove POV template tags without proper reason
Hi Michael.alexander.kaufmann, you made an edit to the Trumpism article page on August 29th, 2020. In the edit, you removed the POV and peacock template tags without proper reason. Please do not remove these tags unless one of the conditions has been met. SubjectiveStopper (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up, won't happen again. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Abstain from editing until Consensus is reached on the Trumpism Talk page.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

In fact, Aviartm is constantly removing important sourced content without valid reason. This has to be addressed. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aviartm (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Michael. It appears you have reverted four times within a 24-hour period which normally leads to a block for WP:3RR violation. You may still respond at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been warned for edit warring at Trumpism per the result of the complaint. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I officially survived my first "edit war". Didn't know about this – interesting experience. From now on, I'll try to reach consensus on the talk page first. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump reverts
Hey! I just wanted to say, given the current discussion at my talk page, that I value the contributions that you made to the 2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump article. The Stanford Law Review that you cited is, without question, a contribution of content and summary of references that I would have been completely unaware of without you doing so. My only concern is that the article is already at 71 kB of readable prose size, and I certainly do not wish to discourage you from contributing any other summaries of references that you may be aware of that would be improvements to the article. The only issue, which I noted in most of the edit summaries, is that the article is already pretty long and pretty detailed. So, don't let my reverts discourage you from contributing to this project. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)