User talk:Archivist1642

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Archivist1642. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome!  Wilbysuffolk   Talk to me  17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

National Council of La Raza
Hi, you have reverted my edits regarding César Chávez a number of times now while claiming that my reliably sourced and academic references are somehow "vandalism". My edits are in good faith. Please use the talk page to express your concerns. Thank you.64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The article you cite is not in reference to the organization in this article. The article itself states "In 1973, the SWCLR became a national organization, changed its name to the National Council of La Raza, " thus Chavez's statements from 1969 or 1970 are not in reference to this organization which did not have "La Raza" in its name at that time.Archivist1642 18:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)archivist1642


 * May I have your permission to copy your post to the article talk page so that I may respond to it in the appropriate venue? Whatever the outcome, discussion of the subject is correctly done at the article. Current and future editors should not have to re-invent the wheel, so to speak, regarding Chávez/La Raza.64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course. You will note, I hope, that when I first removed the Chavez material I left a comment indicating that the edit was due to the date of Chavez's comments and indicating that he was speaking probably about the phrase as a slogan and not this organization. I did not further explain that the organization's name was not "La Raza" at the time, which might have been a helpful addition to my comment.


 * Perhaps than it would be best, and as is customary, if you make and express your own argument on the article talk page opposing the edit. 64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why you will not use the article's talk page?64.53.252.50 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Your recent editing history at National Council of La Raza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD for how this is done.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash; even if you don't violate the three-revert rule; should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.:'''You have made three reverts of good faith and reliably sourced edits without once using the article talk page - and you have done so while inappropriately labeling the reliably sourced and good faith edits as "vandalism". Please refrain from violation of the 3RR rule, the Good Faith Rule and numerous others. Thank you.'''

Here's my version of events.


 * I removed irrelevant content from an article and it was repeatedly re-inserted by an anonymous editor.


 * I was reading some news reports when I came across the name of an organization. Wanting to know more, I looked it up a Wikipedia.  I noticed the erroneous content in the Wikipedia article and corrected the article. I commented my edit to document why I made it. Within a few hours, the erroneous content was put back in by an anonymous user. I removed it again.  Again, it was put back.  At that point, I asked for protection for the page.


 * Some further notes. The content I removed was being used to paint the organization that is the subject of the article in a negative light. Furthermore, the organization (albeit misidentified) has recently been the subject of public vitriol due to current events.


 * I'm glad the other editor eventually sent a message so that we could clear this up, but I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that these were not good faith edits, but were in fact vandalism from the anonymous user for the reasons I stated above and which I will now recap.


 * 1) The content was being used to criticize an organization that has recently been in the news.
 * 2) It might have been sourced, but it certainly was not vetted for relevance to the article.
 * 3) It was repeatedly re-inserted without the anonymous editor making any attempt to talk to me or to address my comment.


 * I will add one final point. There is a Wikipedia article where the content I removed might be relevant, La Raza, but it has not appeared there.

Archivist1642 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)archivist1642


 * I look forward to your specific argument regarding the edits appearing on the article's talk page. As to your reverts for which you gave vandalism as the excuse - it was inappropriate. The sources are without exception all reliable and consist of: The New Yorker, Harper, Farm Worker Movement(dot)org, University of California Press, Ilan Stavans, the University of California 50th-anniversary Farmworker Movement documentation project 1962-1993 and The New York Times. It's incumbent on you to recognize good faith and reliably sourced edits. 64.53.252.50 (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)