User talk:Eduardo.g.harvard

hello homies

Regarding reversions made on September 3 2015 to Chris Bell (politician)
Your recent editing history 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 get 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. 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 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&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I do understand that you said you were removing vandalism, and obvious vandalism is excluded from the 3RR. However, this was not obvious vandalism. I blocked the other party in this edit war for 24 hours, however, since you were reverting vandalism and tried to communicate with the other editor, I will only warn you. Other admins may disagree, and could decide to block you as well, as this normally is what happens in edit wars. If there are additional problems, please post at the appropriate board for other editor's input.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate and applaud your decision. Thank you so much for understanding. Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Couple of notes
I've got the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on my watchlist so noticed the revert you made on that page. Please note that I am not an admin nor am I a volunteer on the DRN, but just another editor on Wikipedia like you. I took a quick glance and wanted to post a couple of thoughts. First, please be careful about what you call vandalism. Wikipedia has a very specific definition at our WP:VANDAL page. To a large extent, edits from another user that are made in good faith should not be described as vandalism, even if you disagree with the edits. Things like adding garbage or patent nonsense is vandalism. I wouldn't describe NicholasNotabene's edits as vandalism as they are a good faith attempt on their part to improve the article. You've got an editing dispute with him and that's quite normal.

Second, realize that NicholasNotabene is only temporarily blocked (24 hours). The block was only for edit-warring, that's it. No judgement call was made by the admin on the content nor will they make such a call on content. The two of need to use the article's talk page to discuss the edits in question and come to a consensus decision. Removing the DRN post as you did saying "dispute has been resolved" is extremely premature and is a bit on the arrogant side. The other editor will be unblocked tomorrow and has every right to return to the article and work on improving it. They also need to discuss the changes on the article talk page or they will end up being blocked again.

My suggestion is to look at the material they wanted to change in the article (add and remove) and see how the changes follow our policies and guidelines (especially having a reliable source and WP:NPOV). Start a talk page discussion on the changes and your views on them, both pro and con. If there's something in their changes that you think is well sourced and relevant, add the material in. You might also consider reverting your removal of the DRN discussion. Good luck. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page section headers
Please read through the talk page guidelines, especially the section on creating new topics. Please avoid using an editors name in the section header on article talk pages. Remember you are there to discuss the edits, not the editor. Calling someone out immediately puts them on the defensive. Wikipedia is consensus-based, so being calm is always helpful. If you get stuck in a dispute, use the dispute resolution process to get some help. This message is being left on both user's talk pages. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I buy that, thanks for the advice Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Dispute Resolution Request
Please do not remove a request for dispute resolution from the dispute resolution noticeboard with the comment that it has been resolved. The status of requests for dispute resolution is decided by the volunteers who assist at the noticeboard, not by editors who are involved in the disputes. If you think that a dispute either has been resolved or should not be opened for some other reason, you may make that statement in your section of the summary of the case. Participation in DRN is voluntary, so that a case is likely to be closed by the volunteers if a key editor does not wish to take part in dispute resolution. However, simply removing a case by an involved editor is inappropriate. The case has been restored. (It is likely to be closed, including because there is also an RFC, but that decision should be made by the volunteers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and assuming bad faith (in falsely labeling your opponent's edits as vandalism), as you did at Chris Bell (politician). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. S warm  ♠  08:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is in response to your report at WP:AN3. Yes, I saw the warning you received above and yes, I absolutely disagree with the decision to block one party to an edit war and not the other and I see no particular mitigating factor for such an unusually-lopsided remedy, particularly given the fact that there has been no acknowledgment of your own wrongdoing, nor commitment to refrain from such behavior in the future. You were warned that this was a possibility and you should not be too surprised by it since you were most certainly asking for it. Falsely reverting edits as "vandalism" is absolutely unacceptable, violates WP:AGF and aggravates the disruption of an edit war. S warm   ♠  08:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When seeking resolution of a content dispute, it is important to be civil and comment on content, not contributors. Both you and the other editor violated the rules of etiquette.  In particular, do not claim "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute.  That is a personal attack, and personal attacks are not permitted.  Edits with which you disagree are not vandalism if there is a content dispute.  Both you and the other editor claimed "vandalism", and both you and the other editor have been blocked.  Please try to learn from your mistakes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for going forward
I left this message on NicholasNotabene talk page and believe it's something you should also consider.
 * Going forward, here's my suggestion (and I'll leave this on Eduardo's talk page as well). First, both of you agree to collapse (don't delete!!!) all of the talk page sections from "Bell propaganda" down.  Remove the RFC's that you've got open.  Then, start a discussion between the two of you on the various points in dispute.  Calmly discuss, using Wikipedia policies and guidelines why the material should or should not be included.  For the areas where you both cannot come to a consensus, start with the third opinion and go from there. Good luck! Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel that, thanks! Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chris Bell Headshot.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Chris Bell Headshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)