User talk:Juanmatorres75

hola

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Disputed status of Gibraltar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. May I suggest that when 4 or more editors have reverted you pointing out your contribution is WP:OR, never mind the fact it is duplicating material already in the article, and is incorrect for grammar and English language usage, then you might be better off taking that on board instead of stubbornly edit warring to insert nonsense into an article. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take this as a final warning, if you insist on inserting this against concensus I will be reporting you for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're planning on editing on wikipedia, please refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Dressing up your own WP:OR as supported by a cite is considered a serious affront on wikipedia. Deliberately inserting information not supported by a cite, whilst claiming it is, is likely to earn you an immediate block from editing wikipedia. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable ideally from reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make several claims that are not supported by the source, they are not even made in the source. You also are using a letter by a QC expressing his opinion, without attribution. The edit itself was seriously misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Look lets stop being a WP:DICK eh? You know your POV edits are unacceptable and edit warring will only lead to a block. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've reported you for edit warring, you've had more than enough chances. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just violated 3RR on Disputed status of Gibraltar please self revert. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Disputed status of Gibraltar. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hello, Juanmatorres, welcome to Wikipedia. My name is Hersfold, and I'm a member of the Arbitration Committee. I noticed that you just tried to file a request for arbitration; I'm guessing this is relation to the edit war you've been involved in at Disputed status of Gibraltar. I can understand that you might be frustrated with how things are going there, but unfortunately Arbitration isn't the right course of action just now. A request for arbitration is the absolute last resort in dispute resolution, and only for incidents involving severe user misconduct or administrative abuse. The Arbitration Committee will not rule on content disputes, and will only agree to hear a case when a number of other attempts at dispute resolution have been tried and failed to resolve the issues at hand.

If you would like assistance with the dispute you're having, I'd recommend taking a look at this page to figure out what other options are available to you. If discussing matters with other involved editors on the article's talk page fails to come to a consensus, usually the next course of action is to seek out a third opinion - asking an editor who's been previously uninvolved in the dispute to provide an outside opinion on the matter, which can give some useful perspective into the matter. If that doesn't help, getting help from users that participate in a relevant Wikiproject may help (there are five listed in the box at the top of the article's talk page), or there are a few noticeboards you can raise the issue at. Whatever you end up going with, remember to try to keep an open mind, and if you're not sure about something, see if there's a policy or guideline that can provide guidance on the issue.

I hope this helps some; if you have any questions about the Arbitration Committee or dispute resolution in general, please feel free to contact me or one of the Arbitration Committee's clerks, and we'll do our best to help. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CInsert_the_case_name.3E

Hello. Looking at your application, and at both the article history of Disputed status of Gibraltar, and your own contributions history, it appears that the Arbitration request is not appropriate. It would be best to withdraw the request, and to start a discussion on the talkpage of Disputed status of Gibraltar. It may well be that you have a point about the content you wish to add (I have no comment on that as I haven't studied it), but the best way of finding out is to discuss it with other contributors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disputed status of Gibraltar

Re your message: I have a hard time believing that you forgot 3RR since you were specifically warned about it in August which was well before your block, warned again just before your block, and the block notice itself told you about edit warring. And you knowingly created a second account after your primary account was blocked.

You may not consider your proposed edits as having consensus due to nobody responding, especially on a controversial topic such as this one. If you are unhappy with the response you received to your proposals, you should follow the dispute resolution process. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Except he did have a response, he simply ignored it to claim a consensus. I don't think too many editors will join in a dialogue of the deaf. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I have not read any of your talk page posts so I can not comment on the validity of your arguments and sources. You received a response from Wee Curry Monster on your September 8th post, but no response to your multiple posts on the 9th and 10th. However, that does still not infer a consensus. Consensus may take some time to resolve. Per the dispute resolution process, you should at minimum seek a third opinion. Requesting arbitration through the Arbitration Committee will likely get your case rejected as your dispute is a content dispute. The Arbitration Committee usually deals with editor misconduct issues, not content issues. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you edited the article twice [1] [2] without consensus again. You do not have consensus for your edits. As I told you before, a non-answer to your follow-up comments does not infer consensus. Contrary to your claim of having a third opinion, you did not even ask for a third opinion. Please follow the dispute resolution procedures. If you continue to make your edits without consensus, you will be blocked again for edit warring. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: You received your third opinion and you do not have consensus for your edits. You may not like or agree with that, but that is how it stands right now. My previous warning to you stands: If you continue to make your edits without consensus, you will be blocked again for edit warring. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: You may continue to discuss the matter on the talk page as you have been doing. You being on the "border" was in regards to putting forth original research, not being on the border of consensus. Additionally, it would be helpful if you were to sign your talk page posts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Let us settle the easy question first: the reason why SineBot is continuing to sign your posts for you is because you do not have a link to your user page in your signature. This is covered in the SineBot FAQ, specifically question #2.

As your issue on Disputed status of Gibraltar, "original research" and "original synthesis" are related so the base issue is the same. The third opinion told you to that there were both original research/original synthesis issues and sourcing issues to your edits. It was suggested to break up your proposed edits into smaller sections as it is easier to discuss smaller sections than major changes like you originally proposed. Getting consensus does not mean just breaking your edits into sections. What is means is getting other editors to say they agree with your proposed edits and that they should be added to the article. As for you having the responsibility to achieve consensus, that is how Wikipedia works. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You added it, it was removed, and if you want the material re-added, it is up to you to get that consensus. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never used the words "authorization" or "permission" so I do not know what you are referring to. I suggest that you read the policy on consensus. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GibraltarPedia

Hi Juan, were you aware of this mess? Hestiaea (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juan, this is also being discussed here. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how are you?

Hey, hows the editing going? Having fun on Wikipedia? --UnhappyandNoFriends (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]