User talk:Mistrout

..

Mexico
I reverted your change about Chocolate. The Cacao plant was native to the region, and was undoubtedly used by many cultures. That the oldest trace we've found was in Olmec fragments does not mean they were the first, and it's not really relevant to the article - the statement that it's native to the area and was featured a prominent (indeed, royal) place in Aztec cuisine is a significant part of both the conquest of Mexico and the introduction of Chocolate to Europe. The archeological trivia of the oldest traces of chocolate yet found were Olmec doesn't improve the article. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Mexico. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''Do not call reverting your edit vandalism. I have left messages both here and in the edit history telling you this requires discussion. You may talk with me here, on my talk page, or on the Mexico talk page.'' Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at Mexico shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)