User talk:Keithbarnold2

September 2022

Your recent editing history at Tulsa race massacre 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—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. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bringing this to my attention. Actually I was unaware that my edits were being accepted. I kept getting an error message and assumed that my edits did not get published. Once I saw someone reversed my edits, I then contacted them on their talk page to discuss. Keithbarnold2 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa race massacre

The title of the article has been extensively discussed. Please do not change it without consensus. Please review the detailed talkpage discussions concerning the titling of the article, and don't edit-war, either with IP or account. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not change the title. Why did you revert my changes? Are you not engaging in an edit war? Keithbarnold2 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article title and headings must match. I've reverted those changes to the staus quo ante which has an established consensus, which is expected to be maintained unless consensus is gained for something different. . You have been disruptively edit-warring using an IP and an account. Read the talkpage discussions as I and others have asked. I've protected the article so that you can do so. The onus is on you to gain consensus after your edits have been challenged. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one has challenged the merits of my edits. The minute I submitted them someone reverted my edits, almost programmatically. I simply reverted them back and posted a query to the person who reverted my edits.

You have repeated that I edited the title. I did not. I changed numerous references to the word massacre because ALL official reports refer to it as a riot. Only editorial articles use the word massacre.

Are you an administrator or just a pedantic contributor? Keithbarnold2 (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you haven’t done as you were asked. Read the talkpage, read the archives. It will take a while. You may not retitle the lead paragraph on your personal analysis. You are expected to cooperate with other editors, no matter what their standing in the community. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don’t go around to other articles to change them without getting consensus on the primary topic first. This is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See specifically the move discussions at Talk:Tulsa race massacre/Archive 2 for the consensus on titling, which extends to terminology in the article body and related articles. Acroterion (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you asked, I read the archived talk page in its entirety and honestly I did not find any clear resolution as there are opinions on both sides. I was surprised that no one actually addressed the actual meanings of the word and their applicability. Most just FELT it should be one way or another.

So I have submitted my thoughts and reasoning to the topic talk page, even though its a bit stale (4 yrs). Keithbarnold2 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit archives - nobody will see your comments, and archives, as the notice at the top of each archive states, should not be edited. Open a new discussion, stating your reasons. You will have to cite sources describing a consensus of reliable sources to support your reasoning, and why you think the existing four-year consensus should be overturned. Remember that Wikipedia is sourced to mainstream news media and academic sources, and that an argument that they are prone to hyperbole is unlikely to gain much traction. Your comments in the archives lack sources or any indication one way or another of what reliable sources call it. It is solely a discussion of your perception, which will not receive much consideration without reference to academic and journalistic sources. Consensus will take time to develop, as in weeks, or a month if a formal request for comment is opened. There is a structure to how these things take place, it is almost never a simple matter of one editor making a change. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]