You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on First Lady of the United States. 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:

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.

Added note

As you say in your looong and snippy edit summaries, "pay attention" - we don't debate content disputes via back and forth edit summaries attached to repeated reverts. That is what the talk page is for. If you have an issue with an edit, discuss it on the talk page. Additionally, edit warring is not tolerated on WP. To justify all this disruption, and your non-collegial attitude, you're gonna need a very *good* reason to meet that bar. So you post it on the talk page buddy, and maybe someone will support you :-) - wolf 06:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fair comment.  :-)

Yeah, "pay attention" was slightly aggressive. At the time, it was justified in my mind based on the fact that it didn't look like you were fully engaged in that particular edit. Maybe you were moving quickly to another edit or something. I don't know. But anyway, "Its sourced" struck me as kurt, dismissive, and contrary to my comment that the source was actually inadequate. "Its sourced", as your only reason for reversion, made it look like you were detached from what was going on right in front of you. I probably shouldn't have actually said it, but in the moment I thought you needed to pay some more attention. So, there it is. Sorry, man.

I like Wikipedian encyclopedic writing to be straightforward, tight, on topic, and easy to read -- generally the way they like it in all that great guidance in WP:MOS. I guess I don't apply that to my edit summaries though, which are often looong like you say! Usually, I think all that explanation helps to prevent conflict, but sometimes not. So again, sorry about that.

I do understand how edit warring works and I wasn't going to go beyond the 3RR without going to the talk page. In fact, before I pushed the matter further I wanted to verify that I had my facts in order. I looked closer at that particular source and there was one place where it alluded a little bit to "female empowerment". I think that particular source is still quite vague about it and a real stretch to support such a bold claim, not to mention that the claim is currently in the lede section only, and looks a lot like POV-pushing. But, I digress. Lots of good stuff for the talk page. See you there! 142.105.159.178 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place. The notice was placed here becuase it was about your editing behaviour, but anything to do with article content should be discussed on the article talk page. (fyi) - wolf 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]