User talk:Yetanotherhistorian

May 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States Department of Justice, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  04:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop hand nuvola.svg Please respect the valid reason given for the removal in the edit summary. A United States Department of Justice is not in the Confederate States of America and claims of revisionist historians to have invented a Department of Justice in the Confederacy are patently false. The Confederacy intentionally copied the US federal government as an exercise in proving that they could run the same government differently, which again is a discussion for the Confederacy pages not United States Department of Justice. Thus content removal was constructive and should not be reverted. Thank you. User:Yetanotherhistorian 04:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not quite how it works. A single editor can't just remove sourced content from an article, and expect his edit summary comment to be the final word on the matter. You need to support your reasons with reliable sources, or else they are considered original research and must be removed. If you have an issue with content, you can  B oldly remove it, which you did, but then you were  R everted. At that point, the editing, (and reverting) should stop, and talk page  D iscussion should begin. (As per WP:BRD - (have you read that yet?). Said discussion gives other editors an opportunity to contribute, and if necessary, form a consensus on the matter. Meanwhile, the disputed content should remain as it was prior to your first edit, as it is sourced and you haven't provided any sources to support your claims, or challenged the current sources at WP:RSN (have you gone there yet?). You have continued to revert the disputed content which is considered edit warring - (have you read that yet?) Again, please self-revert and start a discussion on the talk page, explaining your concerns. It's entirely possible that in short order, your edit(s) and your preferred version of the article will become the accepted version. You just need to follow the guidelines and allow the process to take it's course. Thank you - the WOLF  child  05:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Your recent editing history at United States Department of Justice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.'' Note: I realize you are new user, but if you continue to remove sourced content and/or revert disputes content, this could be considered disruptive editing and even edit warring, which can lead to your account being blocked from editing. Please consider self-reverting the page back to the stable, status quo version prior to your first edit there. Then start a discussion on the talk page, where you can post your concerns about the content in question. You also mentioned an issue you had with sourcing, so you may want to post a comment about that at WP:RSN. Thank you - the WOLF  child '' 04:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why are you adding warning icons to every talk page comment? (including those posted by other editors). You do realize that they are just part of the pre-fab notice templates from Twinkle? They do not need to (and really should not) be added to comments. FYI - the WOLF  child  19:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)