User talk:71.31.110.150

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Battle of Kings Mountain 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Right, Sundayclose and you are the one that started reverting without a reason stated in the edit summary and you used twinkle to do it. I'm following BRD and posted on the talk page to engage in discussion. Per BURDEN which is policy, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So, I have a right by policy to remove it. If he was mistreated, show me. There isn't any other mention of mistreatment of prisoners in the article so I am only wanting to know what it is talking about. I read the whole diary and I didn't see him complain of mistreatment. I left you a link on the talk page and it is only 33 short pages long. I encourage you to read it and join in the discussion if you see where I may have missed it. 71.31.110.150 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD again, this time thoroughly. If someone reverts your edit (as I did), you then discuss and wait for WP:CONSENSUS. BRD doesn't say "revert again, and then discuss". And more importantly, read WP:3RR. You have exceeded the bright line for editing warring. Also note that edit warring is not determined by whether someone is right or wrong. It's determined by repeated reverts without discussion. You have an opportunity to possibly avoid a block. Sometimes administrators will not block if someone self-reverts, but there are no guarantees of that. My suggestion is, revert your last edit, then wait for others to discuss on the talk page. That's the way BRD works. If you continue this nonsense the article likely will be semi-protected, which means you can't edit even if you change IP address or register a new account. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

---