User talk:Carlosescobar

Hi there. I got your message, but I think you've got the wrong man; I've never edited that article or had an interaction with you, so I'm not too sure what to say (other than what I just said). Thanks for being respectful, though! Cheers and good luck, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I doubt that; perhaps you followed a link on his talk page to mine? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Sandahl (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

The reason I'm undoing text in the Charley Casserly article is that the other person is quite biased. That person is deleting text that is totally supported by footnotes. Please read the text being deleted by the other person before you pass judgment. If Wikipedia is going to be an unbiased source of facts, it needs to be objective. The other person is writing information that is not only slanted in Casserly's favor, but is just plain not true. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further.

I would also add that HM211980 has ignored repeated warnings from Wikipedia moderators not to keep deleting text supported by footnotes.

Respectfully,

Carlos Escobar

Neither of you appears to be editing from a neutral point of view. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page instead of edit warring to your preferred version. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

If you look at the talk page, you will see that I have tried to note some of my concerns. If you looked at the footnotes the other person is deleting from the article, you would also see that the person is deleting information that is fully supported by third parties. The other person has been warned repeatedly about deleting text that is supported by facts. Why didn't you comment on his/her talk page?

Respectfully,

Carlos Escobar

Many of the "third party" sources you are using to cite facts don't appear to qualify as reliable sources. I did comment on his talk page...several minutes before I decided to leave you a note as well. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, yes...you have attempted to use the talk page. Thank you for attempting that. Since that appears to not be working, please consider further methods of dispute resolution. The most likely result of an edit war is not to "win" the argument, but for the participants to be blocked. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Which of sources do you have an issue with? Many of my cites are to the New York Times, Pro Football Weekly (the most respected source of information about the NFL), the Washington Post and the Houston Chronicle.

I would welcome a discussion about Casserly's tenure with the Texans. The other person is trying to make the article read like Casserly was a resounding success as GM of the Texans. He was anything but a success. He left the team 2-14, the worst in the NFL, with poor players and no room under the salary cap due to his lousy free agent signings. How can he possibly be regarded as a success with that track record? The new coach and GM have had to completely remake the Texans' roster.

Respectfully,

Carlos Escobar

As Onorem has suggested, I strongly recommend taking this to the talk page. You and HM211980 are editing from opposite positions. Administrators are not arbiters of content: you must work it out with other editors. If the dispute is not resolved, the article may be protected from editing until a consensus is reached. Wikipedia is not the place to express anyone's personal opinion on Casserly's work, either directly or by selective quotation. Acroterion _(talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will start explaining my edits further in the talk page. Let's see how that goes.

Respectfully,

Carlos Escobar

Our goal is to get you talking to each other on the talk page, rather than reverting each other. Admittedly, that's going to be hard, as you are approaching the article from opposite positions, but it can be done. I've left the same message from above on HM211980's page. If the edit-warring continues, an admin will lock the article, and everybody will be forced to talk it over on the talk page. I appreciate your willingness to try for a compromise. Acroterion _(talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Carlosescobar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Charley Casserly. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ruslik (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Casserly[edit]

Please remember not to go overboard on this article yet again. All GMs make some bad picks. I don't see anywhere where it suggests that was he any better/worse than any other GM. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going overboard, I'm just pointing out FACTS. If you read the discussion relating to the Redskins, it sounds like Casserly was extraordinarily good with his draft picks. Many of them were good, but many of them were bad. Talk to any Redskins fan. If the article is going to be fair, shouldn't it cover his entire record?

I'm not planning reverting what you've added so far. I'm just letting you know that previous versions of the article you edited were overly negative, and if too much negative information is added, it will likely be trimmed again. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm trying to do is be FAIR. The original Casserly entry read like it had been written by Casserly himself or his press agent. You sound like you're knowledgeable about the NFL, and I hope that is the case. Casserly left the Texans with a 2-14 record, a roster devoid of talent except for a handful of players, and no room under the salary cap. That is simply a matter of public record.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]