User talk:2001:56A:706E:1100:C00C:31FA:FB4:21B3

June 2022

Hi 2001:56A:706E:1100:C00C:31FA:FB4:21B3! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of George Stinney 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.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:George Stinney, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. I did not revert anything. Instead, I realized my previous edit was incorrect and made new and different edits with corrected information. 2001:56A:706E:1100:C00C:31FA:FB4:21B3 (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If the conviction is vacated, there is no conviction, but there then needs to be an explanation for the disposition of the charge. In the US, if the accused is dead, the charges will be dismissed (otherwise, there'd be a retrial unless the court otherwise disposes of it in the judgement that vacates the previous judgement). I restored parts of my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Stinney&type=revision&diff=1094889987&oldid=1094872663) and you and others can figure out how to best update the article to explain that. 2001:56A:706E:1100:C00C:31FA:FB4:21B3 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2022 (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.

---