User talk:Ya hemos pasao

August 2020
Please stop adding redundant and bias information onto articles. You can not change articles to fit your agenda. I notice you have a very clear history of this sort of disruptive behaviour. If you do not stop, I will have to take this higher. Thank you. --Wordbearer88 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights
Re your recent deletion: why not edit this to better reflect the ambiguity and the better sources that you have? Rwood128 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * All right, I will, when I have time. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Coon
I've raised them at WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Carleton S. Coon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 12:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome
Hi Ya hemos pasao. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Ya hemos pasao", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears that you might be using a disruptive or offensive username. "Ya hemos pasao" is a known falangist song and slogan, referencing the words used by Francisco Franco following the nationalist victory in the Siege of Madrid. As this appears to be what your username is referencing, then it may well violate all four of the criteria of : This is particularly concerning due to your recent edit warring in the Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial article, which is a subject directly connected to the slogan in the displayed username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The username may be offensive to contributors, particularly those from Spain or descendants of veterans of the Spanish Civil War.
 * 2) The username may be taken as a personal attack, as it includes an implication of violence.
 * 3) The username may be intended to provoke an emotional reaction, as it is referencing a very emotive political slogan.
 * 4) The username may display an intent towards disruptive editing, as it indicates a purpose to treat editing as a battleground and having little or no interest in working collaboratively, due to its connection to a partisan war-time slogan.

Request for comment
Hello, Ya hemos pasao. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Grnrchst (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sky News Australia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC) You seem to be interested in pushing a political agenda and not collaborating with others. A secondary concern is your username, which is a right-wing slogan and potentially disruptive- though I will leave a decision on that to any reviewing administrator(who should view WP:RFCN for a discussion). 331dot (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If I have a battleground mentality, it's because of the extremely unfair treatment I have been subjected to. You say I "have no insight into the problems with your editing vs. the policies of this project". So please give me that insight. What specifically is wrong with my conduct, and what do I need to do to be unblocked? It cannot be edit-warring since, as I explained, I have not violated the three revert rule, and in cases of disputes I am the one initiating discussions on the talk page, not the other way around. What was I supposed to do in those situations? Roll over and let other editors get away with flagrant POV violations? It cannot be 'right-wing bias' since, as I said, numerous other editors display clear bias and are not penalised for it. My edits improve articles and are in accordance with Wikipedia policies, to the best of my knowledge. I don't attempt to push my personal POV in articles but to maintain NPOV based on reliable sources. I mentioned I am willing to change my username. Please help me to understand what I'm doing wrong so I can do better. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding edit warring, while 3RR is a bright line to cross, you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts, this is spelled out in the policy. 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nothing much new to say. You are extraordinarily sure of the righteousness of your own opinions, which is off-putting at best. This shows up in your edits and, even more obviously in your overly long edit summaries. I suggest you think some more about what others have criticized you for, look at it from their perspective rather than your own, and formulate another unblock request for another administrator to review. I strongly urge you to make that unblock request shorter, more temperate, and a geat deal less of WP:NOTTHEM.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just noting that yes, I would block a left wing slogan or a centrist slogan; the username policy does not discriminate based on political views. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pings do not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping, I will ping for you. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)