User talk:Javierfrancis

March 2017[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alexander Acosta. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information that is fully sourced from reputable news organizations. There is no personal analysis or commentary in my edit. It all comes from news reports. Javierfrancis (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javierfrancis, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Javierfrancis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alexander Acosta. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

You need to take it to the talk page, please. The other user has reverted yours, so now you discuss. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block[edit]

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the Three revert rule (and for failing to use the article talk page—please do so). Please be more careful in the future. El_C 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope this account isn't connected to you. El_C 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Javierfrancis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I followed all the rules for civil editing. I added information that was pertinent to this biography. I included citations. There were no threats. There was no vandalism. There was no analysis or opinion, only sourced news reports from reputable news organizations. I engaged on the talk page. Another contributor whose biographical page indicates he might have a work-related interest in keeping information out of this biography would not engage me on the substance of our polite disagreement. I am a new user, and unfamiliar with some of the Wikipedia culture, but I believe my edits were illuminating and in good faith. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

No, you did not follow any rules of civil editing. You were WP:edit warrring and you were refusing to enagage in discussion with other users. It also seam that you were evading the block by creating a WP:sockpuppet named Theophilusx. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Javierfrancis (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]