Seconding that sentiment, I wanted to draw your attention to WP:BADNAC, which states:
A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ...
2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
3. The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.
I notice you have fairly limited experience at AfD, so while the enthusiasm to help AfDs is very welcome, it might be worth sticking around to gain some experience by participating in AfD discussions before attempting to closure future AfDs.
Finally, per WP:EARLY, note that deletion discussions usually close after seven days. Your attempted close was after six days, and none of the conditions for an early close applied. Thanks, and happy editing! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Persecution of First Nations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]04:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Jeffrey Ostler. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there's no indication that this person passes WP:NPROF – h-index is 6 according to Scopus.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
It has been drawn to my attention that you have a strong tendency to create RfCs when your bold actions are rejected. You have done this recently on Native American genocide in the United States. Seven people out of the seven who have responded have opposed your proposal. Would you consider closing your own request, per WP:SNOW? Thank you for your consideration for others' time. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While I believe normally the language is something like "withdrawn by proposer" rather than "self-close", this is appreciated. KC vs. 8 people is indeed WP:1AM. Maybe you could go for a walk for a while or focus on one of the pages you think should be more strongly worded ? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses in the United States 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 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 being blocked from editing—especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your two reverts today, meaning you've already breached WP:1RR:
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, American history wars, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:American history wars where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thanks for creating this page! I do not believe the sourcing does not support this concept as sufficiently notable for a standalone page, but it could with work and review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inthis edit you added various names to the lede. Doing so has been rejected by consensus. In addition, you added extremely POV names such as "Gaza holocaust". Please be more careful to adhere to NPOV in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you recent edits to this article because there is an ongoing discussion of these issues on the Talk page and you have no consensus for these changes. Please engage in the Talk discussion and seek consensus for you proposed changes. Happy to discuss on Talk pages. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I removed the pie chart in Religion in the United Kingdom. Thanks for trying to help out the situation, but the discussion on the talk page was about coming up with an accurate chart, or removing the chart and allow the data in the article to suffice. Unfortunately, the old chart that you put back, was completely off and did not match the cited data at ARDA [3]https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=233c.
I think that a pie chart in the lede is going to be a problem, for several reasons relating to scope. Anyway , if you want to come up with a pie chart for the lede section, then have at it, but it's going to need to have the data set well defined (scoped) and the data cited. But between you and I, I'd leave it to the article to be more detailed.
The destination of the URL changed, @Bobsd:. Not sure if the original version is recoverable. However, I'm fine with any pie chart being excluded from the article's lead, at least until now.
It would seem to violate WP: SYNTH to merge together the 2021 census polling and the (heavily criticized) 2024 Scottish polling together. So that 2018 survey was the best I could find. KlayCax (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KlayCax! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Genocide Joe several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Hello, in this edit you reframed the introduction of Palestinian genocide accusation , an extremely sensitive topic to state: "There is a consensus in the international human rights legal community that the State of Israel has carried out or incited genocide against Palestinians during parts of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Your edit was based on a reference to a 'new Boston University statement,' which, upon review, appears to be a single report presented within an op-ed. This does not provide sufficient evidence to make such definitive statements in WP:VOICE. Let's try to ensure more rigorous sourcing and balanced coverage in the future. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
University Network for Human Rights states that: The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The opposition is from Israel, which has never accepted claims that it has committed atrocities—claims which have been made for decades for its actions as an occupier of Palestinian territory—and repudiates charges of war crimes and genocide. Israel has almost unconditional backing from the United States, and has military and other support from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and a few other Western states. The United States and the United Kingdom have condemned claims of genocide against Israeli leaders, including the orders of the ICJ and the ICC seeking arrest warrants. WP: NPOV does not mean equal weight. Particularly on questions of genocide, @ABHammad:. Consensus seems clear.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. You continue to edit war on the Genocide Joe article/redirect. This behavior related to a contentious topic and BLP is unwise -- to say the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KlayCax. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}}or{{ygm}} template.
I've drawn attention to your deceptive edit summary on the talk page of National Rally. Please restore the text prior to your edit and explain on the talk page what you are citing to claim that the NR is one of only two major parties in France. (This is certainly not in the article given as the source.) Thank you. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥13:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to polling, @SashiRolls:. France has a winner-take-all system for legislative seats.
Similar sentiments can be found in other articles. For example:
In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections...
Similarly, most reliable sources say that the Socialist Party is no longer a major force either, and the French left is far too factionalized to describe any of theirs as "major". KlayCax (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make this perfectly clear so there are no surprises later. Next time I block you for edit warring it will be indefinite. I see some recent edit warring warnings, and I full protected a page because of an edit war you were part of, so I want you to know the stakes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it should go through the normal AfD process. The full context is on the talk page here. The National Rally edits are explained above, ScottishFinnishRadish. (With source.) KlayCax (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this was not a wise move. There's being bold, but adding controversial labels (after vast discussion has taken place on such things) to an article designated a contentious topic shouldn't take place without consensus. — Czello(music)14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive edit warning - U.S. presidential election pages
You do realize you can be blocked for edit warring, even if it is outside of the 3RR, right? Your edit warring at 2024 United States presidential election in Oklahoma is disruptive, especially since it goes against consensus. We decided 4-3 against including Kennedy in the Utah article until he hits 3+ consistent polls at 5%+ average; why would the criterion be any different for Oklahoma? I will give you 24 hours to self-revert. Otherwise, I will likely seek intervention from an admin, whether that be implementing 1RR on the state articles, reporting you for disruptive editing and edit warring, or otherwise. You are part of the reason why 1RR had to be implemented on the main article, I hope we can work together to avoid having a repeat for the state articles. Also, pretty bizarre for you to add Cornell West to the Michigan infobox when he lacks ballot access and 5% polling, and you already know the consensus requires both. That is not “BOLD”, that is a deliberate disruption. Prcc27 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, other users have already called you out for acting in “bad faith” and “POV”-pushing RFKJR into infoboxes [4]. Unfortunately it seems you have decided to ignore our warnings. I think a topic ban for you may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.) There was never a consensus for 3+ consistent polls at 5%+ average. Esolo5002 briefly suggested it. (If you add me into the count: it's 4-4. Which is a tie. Even if it was 4-3, that's not a "consensus") Note that GreatCaesarGhost stated in the thread what I'm stating now: This is why state level polling is a bad choice - you'll have him listed at some states and not others based on whether third party pollsters choose to poll a state, rather than any objective read on the state of the campaign.
2.) If you know anything about me, @Prcc27:, you know that I think that Kennedy is a fucking nut. I'm "passionate" about including him because there's clearly different standards being set on American and non-American articles.
3.) The Michigan edit was a WP: BOLD one and I can see how editors could disagree with it. However, both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled above 5% in Michigan, with the first having officially certified ballot access, so inclusion isn't that ridiculous of a notion. (Many Social Democrats, Muslims, and more, which are overrepresented in Michigan, have extensively negative views of Biden's handling of the 2024 Israeli-Hamas war.)
4.) As you can see above: the "edit conflicts" were misunderstandings from other editors. I near exclusively edit on controversial topics. So it's not surprising that my wall is debates over my edits/wording.
I'll revert my edit on the Oklahoma article in the meantime and discuss it on there. Since I know we're traditionally had a pretty adversarial relationship with one another and I don't want that. My intention with my edits isn't to edit war or to annoy you. It's just because we have fundamental disagreements over how Wikipedia should cover several respective topics. I'll message you on the Oklahoma talk page now so we can work something out, @Prcc27:. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did include you in the 4-3, I’m pretty sure. But regardless, the onus for consensus is on those seeking to include something. By default, RFKJR, et al. should be left out of the infobox, until there is a clear consensus.
I do not disbelieve that you are not a fan of RFKJR, but you do seem to be pushing third party candidates as a whole. As much as I would love for third party candidates to get more attention, it is not Wikipedia’s place to promote them unduly. Especially when we already agreed on a inclusion criteria on when we should include them.
Is Cornell West *averaging* 5%? If having one 5% poll was the threshold, the infobox could get quite crowded with minor candidates that have virtually no shot at actually winning 5%. Regardless, you have been told multiple times that ballot access is required for inclusion. No excuse.
No misunderstanding. You created a duplicate discussion at the talk page to push hard for RFKJr, and you have repeatedly added him and others to the infobox without consensus. The next time you add a candidate to the infobox without consensus, I will be making a report to an admin. I would also advise against acting “boldly” on infoboxes in the future.
@Prcc27 The area is designated as a contentious topic and KlayCax has had an alert, so it would be an Arbitration Enforcement issue - possibly under the AP topic area as well Doug Wellertalk06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! Arbitration Enforcement will be the next step then, if this kind of editing continues. Prcc27 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.) By default, RFKJR, et al. should be left out of the infobox, until there is a clear consensus. There was a consensus to add candidates who were averaging 5% in polling and had official ballot access. Both applied to Kennedy here.
2.) Insofar that editors on the 2024 Mexican general election were "pushing" to have third-party candidate Jorge Máynez added. Mexico also has a first past the post election system, Máynez polled at the same numbers Kennedy did, and both candidates had similarly no chance of winning, so the proposal seems common sense to me, as even my compromise proposal has eligibility standards found nowhere else for candidates in other national infoboxes. Coverage isn't an endorsement.
3.) Is Cornell West *averaging* 5%? If having one 5% poll was the threshold, the infobox could get quite crowded with minor candidates that have virtually no shot at actually winning 5%. Yes, of the polls taken so far. At the very least: Jill Stein is averaging 5% and has official ballot access. This situation doesn't apply to any other state. So there's no risk of the infobox being overcrowded with minor candidates if we include one or both of them.
The next time you add a candidate to the infobox without consensus, I will be making a report to an admin. The consensus was polling with an average of 5% + official ballot access. Both applied here.
I would also advise against acting “boldly” on infoboxes in the future. This sort of vague threatening as a muzzling technique is uncalled for. None of my edits violated Wikipedia policy.
I've been entirely nice to you so I'm unsure what you have against me. (I've never written anything similar back to you.) And I honestly don't want to keep doing this on every article we mutually edit. KlayCax (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that consensus made..? As you already know, there was a discussion on Utah which seemed to lean in favor of an additional consistent polling criterion, and there was also this discussion which OP specifically said aggregates, but we never tackled whether to use aggregates, consistent polling, or just any polling in that section.
Nobody said you “endorse” RFKJR, but you are unduly pushing third party candidates in the infobox, in some cases even when they have no ballot access in the state.
Cornell West’s polling average in Michigan is below 5%; he only had one 6% poll in the state. And Jill Stein has not polled at 5% in MI at all. Do not gaslight me! Either way, you clearly knew that West does not have ballot access in the state, and you still pushed him in the infobox. I told you, you shouldn’t be bold in the infobox as advice and a courtesy, not a threat. When you are adding candidates that have less than 5% polling and no ballot access and you have already consistently been reverted for adding candidates that do not meet one or both requirements– that is disruptive editing, not BOLD editing. You are welcome to make edits that are actually compliant with WP:BOLD, but you never welcome to disrupt Wikipedia. Your confusion on what counts as “BOLD” can get you banned, and it is best to avoid making unilateral major changes to the infobox if you have already been reverted several times for similar edits.
and there was also this discussion which OP specifically said aggregates. In terms of averages, yes, but that's far from a consensus. Even so: Kennedy surpassed that.
When you are adding candidates that have less than 5% polling and no ballot access Jill Stein has ballot access and was averaging 5% in the state, yes. You can see here that they gave it 8% among African-Americans voters and 5% among voters overall in Michigan. I don't think we're in danger of a similar situation or circumstance happening anywhere else. The edit was also a self-pronounced WP: BOLD one. Stein definitely meets the criteria. At the time, West was claiming ballot access in Michigan, although he seems to have walked that back. Both the polling statistics and ballot access were met at the time. (For Stein; and, briefly, it appeared, West.)
You can see the poll above, @Prcc27:. Polling was performed. However, it was listed on FiveThirtyEight at the time (nor the article) so I can see how you missed it. It was a miscommunication as you can see above.
I literally can’t access that paywalled site. But based on the polls included in the actual Michigan Wikipedia article, West is well below 5% when you average all of the polls on our article. Jill Stein has zero 5%+ polls according to our Wikipedia article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not been a discussion on what aggregation means in this context.
However, a candidate could go -> 1%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 2%, 1%, 1%, 2%, 1%, 2% |massive event happens|, 5%, 12% for instance and still be under 5% in both median and mode. KlayCax (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the 12% poll would be an outlier..? That is why we take an average of several polls, so no one poll puts a candidate over the threshold. The point is, you knew the consensus, and ignored it. You know what an average or aggregate means; you’re not fooling anyone but yourself. I see no reason to proceed with this conversation any further, you have been warned, and next time you disrupt the presidential election articles, you will be reported. Simple. Prcc27 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering where you got the source that Thomas Crooks was alleged to be center-left or a centrist by classmates. Almost all said he was conservative, some said he didn't talk about it with them. None said anything like that. Not in the sources provided, either. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here, and here, among other sources. Multiple individuals have claimed that he expressed a dislike of Trump, was COVID-19 conscious and admired Fauci, among other claims.
Fox News isn't a reliable source, but luckily I found a Spectrum News article [5]. Being conscious of COVID doesn't suggest political leaning. The The Guardian article you cited does say the recollections vary, but never said that they were contradictory. It only cited sources that said he was conservative or didn't talk about politics with them. No more than one source said he didn't like Trump. To the contrary, at least two sources said he did support Trump. No one ever said he admired Fauci. No one explicitly said he was a liberal, centrist, or was center-left.
One classmate said he was slightly right leaning. Many said he was conservative, some said that he liked Trump. Some said he didn't talk about politics with them. One said he didn't like Trump.
We should mention it, no matter how seemingly contradictory. His political views are very important to consider in the context of him shooting a major politician. They are widely reported by the media because they see this connection. We can't just write it all off because you see the claims as contradictory. Personisinsterest (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously contradictory that some have stated that he was COVID-19 conscious, admired Fauci, and disliked Trump, others have described him as a centrist, and others as conservative.
WP: HEARSAY, WP: BLP, and other policies obviously apply here, and it's frequent for political assassinations to take actions without any consideration of politics.
No one said he was a centrist, including your supposed sources. And saying being COVID-conscious represents political leaning is original research unless a source connects the dots. But I guess it is contradictory with people saying he liked or didn't like Trump. But he's obviously a conservative, and no one has disputed that. Some conservatives don't like Trump, it doesn't cancel out. If allowed in Wikipedia policy, it is worth talking about for the reasons above. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read Fox as it is not RS. I saw nothing in your other two cites or any other RS that indicated he was anything but conservative. As for disliking Trump, I think all of the VP possibilities said bad things about Trump, as well as many Republican senators. Really bad things. That doesn't mean they are on the left. And only extremists were not Covid-19 conscious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The classmate described him as left of center. That's what he claimed. We don't know his ideology. President Biden has stated it, the FBI has stated it, his peers can't agree on his ideology. No, we should not put it in Wikivoice. @Objective3000:. It should be absurdly obvious by now that the reports of peers are heavily contradictory. This needs to go to RFC. But it would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to reinstate it, in my view.
All of this could of course be added if it's confirmed. For now, it's absolute speculation, and it's widely irresponsible that people want to include unverified claims that he's left or right-wing into the article.
Many times: these type of things aren't even about policies. (Reagan's shooter being obsessed with Jodie Foster. Just to give one example.) It's obvious we should wait. KlayCax (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you would even mention Fox. I wouldn't be surprised if Fox said he was a Communist, transexual, illegitimate son of Biden. They have suggested Biden is a demon from Hell and Trump was appointed by God. Personally if I had to guess, I'd guess he was just looking for a famous suicide and Trump was a convenient, nearby target. As far as waiting, I don't think the article should even exist for a few months. But if folks here insist that it exists, and we are going to talk about social media crap, perhaps we need to also talk about what RS have found thus far. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan sources, whether from Fox News, Jacobin, American Conservative, MSNBC, or anywhere else are fine, @Objective3000:. As long as we're citing sources. The gist of the matter is that eyewitnesses have given dramatically different accounts and it's all hearsay for the time being. And I agree with you that it's likely that he was just looking for a famous suicide. But this is once again speculation. As for waiting? Yes, we can't override the RFC on that.
I think you're confusing your definition of left of center with what's actually in the sources themselves. You cannot say he is left of center because one classmate said he didn't like Trump and use that as evidence the reports are contradictory. This is a big problem and what got me so riled up. Don't impose things on sources to pretend he was alleged to have a bunch of different political ideologies. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to adding anything regarding his political views outside of his registration and donations into the article. When did I ever add anything into the article saying that he was center-left? I didn't. Fox News stated he was described as center-left by a classmate, that's where I'm getting it from, @Personisinsterest:. I'm definitely opposed to adding that statement into Crook's Wikipedia article. (To state again.) And it's not original research to state that classmates have described his political views in radically contradicting ways and we don't know his beliefs. It's directly stated here and multiple other sources. He certainly has been alleged to have a "bunch of different political ideologies". Once described him as a hardcore conservative, another a right-leaning centrist, and another a "center-leftist" according to Fox News. (Citing his concern over COVID-19, masking, and supporting Fauci's cautionary approach to the pandemic.)
The Guardian article didn't say they were contradictory. It said they varied. And they only cited people who said he was conservative or didn't talk to them about politics.
I said that you used the assumption he was center-left to help your argument.
By the way, conservative and right leaning, which are the two explicit descriptors without the things you said, are not contradictory. It is contradictory between whether or not he supports Trump. Even the source that said he didn't like Trump didn't say he wasn't conservative. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, American history wars, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:American history wars where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thanks for creating this page! I do not believe the sourcing does not support this concept as sufficiently notable for a standalone page, but it could with work and review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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.
