User talk:Spuum

Dispute
Spuum, beware of the three revert rule: you can't make more than 3 reverts in the same article within a 24-hour period. You've made three in the last 24 hours. You may be blocked from editing for violating that rule.

Please try to fix your edit instead of restoring it. Address the concerns expressed by users Morenooso and Jmundo, and me. SamEV (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most incorrect to imply that supplying additional references or copyediting when requested might qualify as 'reversion'.Spuum (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --moreno oso (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hispanic and Latino Americans, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You have no WP:CONSENSUS for this edit. Please cease.'' --moreno oso (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kid, what you need to not do is to make threats like you just have and rather to contribute to the article talkpage discussion on the matter as I, unlike you, have not failed to do since the last revised submission. Every step along the way I have copyedited, I have revised content, I have section-tagged and I have supplied referencing when requested each time as means of compromise and accomodation to arrive at the right formulation of content to supply further useful information on the subject matter. Then it also falls upon the likes of you to come halfway the other side to make some constructive' suggestions as to content you'd wish to be included in the particular place. So far its been a resounding silence on that but the invitation's out there.
 * Decidedly also, yourself being the sole party so far to express an opinion on the last revised submission without yet a seconder doesn't amount to absence of consensus.Spuum (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor viewpoint) Hi, I would like to say that the high number of reversions on the article could be a problem under the Edit warring guidelines. However taking into consideration your attempts to discuss on the talk page I think there is sufficient good faith involved. I suggest you consider the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle good practice guidelines and you may want to put a pause on matters and raise for an independent Third opinion rather than running into any further user warnings based on the number of reverts of the same material or accusations of disruptive editing. Should you carry on with your current confrontational repeated edits and ignore warnings from the above experienced contributors, then your account is quite likely to be blocked on the next occasion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Each time objection has been raised to content supplied, I've varied/developed it taking appopriate consideration. There should be no persecution whatsoever for that. At some point the database will have to reflect that race of people's reputation for acceptable illegitimacy. With any acknowledged majority custom that's only strengthening, its not undue to acknowledge and report it - it's undue to ignore it.
 * Okay, I understand your argument but you must stay within the guidance highlighted above of WP:3RR and WP:DE. You may find it helpful to use one of the Dispute resolution processes available to make your argument clear and reach a consensus before changing or fixing the article, this way there can be no later disputes about any such changes. I strongly recommend following Third opinion and if you feel there are vested interests and bias apparent after taking another opinion then you can try the longer process of Requests for comment (in the later case it may be worth discussing the text of a suggested proposal before making it community wide). This way you will get to expand on your perspective and ensure review by people with no history of contributions to the article. Fæ (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
A discussion concerning your recent reverts to Hispanic and Latino Americans has been post to this LINK. You may wish to visit the board and discuss your edits there. moreno oso (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hispanic and Latino Americans
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Hispanic and Latino Americans. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Metric Martyrs appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning September 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did in Salvatore Giunta (Medal of Honor). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hispanic and Latino Americans. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The research behind the published facts in no degree is my own. It is that of the Centre for Disease Control and US Census Bureau.
 * That may be, but the manner in which it was worded in the article was woefully misrepresented. Using an opinion piece as a reference, calling unwed parenthood a "majority cultural practice" (in direct contradiction to the scholarly article you posted for the next sentence)... should I keep going? Please keep your biases and personal points of view out of the encyclopedia. You've already been blocked once for disruptive editing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest, Spuum, that you first go to the Talk section and post there, get feedback, etc. You would have a much better chance on avoiding reverts.The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Allah article
Some of your additions (diff) to the Allah article were not appropriate. While the concept of "personifications" is relevant, you did little but add photos and label them in an improper way. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even a little is something that broadens awareness of a subject matter, which is our goal. Working on the labels, do you require dates and context? I can do my best to supply that. We're fortunate to have face image of both of those Allahs.

Hispanic and Latino Americans
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jmundo (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule&#32;on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. —  Jeff G. ツ  04:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Raghead Injun listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Raghead Injun. Since you had some involvement with the Raghead Injun redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kilopi (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)