User talk:2601:249:8300:593C:748B:BF6D:BEDE:6E34

You currently appear to be 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. 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:

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.

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. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Backlash (sociology)

If you want your preferred version, please see WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page of the article: Talk:Backlash_(sociology)#IP_editor_desiring_changes.

If you can provide reliable sources for your preferred version that will work better than what is there--WHICH HAS NO SOURCES AT ALL. Google scholar is an easy free way to find good sources: [1]. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I feel like you are making this a big deal when it is not. The previous version did not have any citations, so the admonishment in this regard is also applicable to the original version (and the attempted reversion). Second, this is not an edit war; if you believe that the previous version, written at a high school level, consisted of better grammar and sentence structure, then please feel free to revert back. Similarly, please feel free to find your own scholarly sources and add your own contributions rather than trying to moderate a "war" that does not exist.

I understand it is not a "big deal" to you. However, you are new to Wikipedia, and you do not appear to understand our rules. If you don't like what is there you are allowed to boldly change it. That's fine. But if someone WP:reverts your change, then you are not allowed to change it back again. The Wikipedia technical name for that is an "edit-war" (See WP:EDITWAR). You can be blocked for doing that. That is why you are warned. If you do it again, the warning will serve to show that you knew that you had broken a rule.

As for the sourcing, if you want to be a helpful wikipedia editor, all the material needs to be grounded in reliable sources that are verifiable. These are key pillars to what Wikipedia is all about. See WP:5P.

I agree with you that the original version was not great, and the other stuff in the articles is pretty bad too. In fact, the way it is, I think the entire article should be deleted.

Nonetheless, if you want to improve it, you need to get WP:consensus for your changes, not force them upon the rest of the editors who might disagree. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

---