Shakewalk

March 2022

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Timothy Tyson, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Tacyarg (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Be kind and put it back up. Thanks. Link to FBI report on Tyson. https://wwwjustice.gov/crt/case-document/emmett-till- notice to Close File Shakewalk (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Your recent editing history 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. Bilby (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I broke any rules!

This is my problem; Tyson can write untruths about people in his books and be allowed to self-promote his work on the Wikipedia platform for free with no repercussions from Wikipedia or the public. There is only one reason why Tyson a professor, Historian and Research Scholar would lie. Tyson, and his assistant, with sparsely written notes and a recorder that did not show any evidence that the [RT1] women changed her testimony. Tyson’s book prompted the FBI to investigate at Taxpayers’ expense to his clams. The Department of Justice report shows that Tyson was not trustworthy. I guest lying to the public while profiting from it is OK. Attention to detail: The Historian should have a strong attention to detail in almost every capacity. Whether researching verbal or written information. Tyson and his books have cast a lot of doubt on History, Historians and Research Scholars.

[RT1] and no one will ever know. Thanks'

Shakewalk (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this edit acceptable?

Published in 2017, The Blood of Emmett Till reexamines the lynching of Emmett Till in 1955. The book was a New York Times bestseller, won the 2018 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award and was longlisted for the National Book Award. The Big Question: Is Timothy B. Tyson miss leading the public that testimony was changed?  Read the Department of Justice Report for yourself. You Must READ: The United States Department of Justice File - https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/emmett-till-notice-close-file-0 Shakewalk (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)