User talk:Huasteca

Huasteca, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Huasteca! 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 Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to José María Morelos have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: José María Morelos was changed by Huasteca (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85701 on 2021-01-07T23:10:17+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[1] Read WP:BRD. Please take the article to the stable version. I engaged in the talk page before your 3RR infraction, btw. First warning.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stable version talk this article has just been created. You have removed a reliable source without any valid justification. I cannot see any logic in your arguments.--Huasteca (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is always a stable version predating an editorial conflict. Sorry if you seemingly don't know how Wikipedia works. Although I suspect you actually do. What part of do not combine material from two different sources to state something new you don't understand? You have actually removed the El Periódico source without any valid justification. For the upteempth time: return the article to the stable version (the one predating the conflict, if you wish). I did return to the stable version, because you are doing synth with another source, to begin with. But why can't you understand??--Asqueladd (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the part where I'm not combining sources, I'm reflecting what AEMET says from one source: La Vanguardia. There is no synth with any other source. AEMET is the reliable source on accumulated snow in Madrid. If any other source has other estimates you are welcome to remove them. Retiro had 55cm of accumulated snow as did Cuatro Vientos as did most of Madrid, as any Madrid denizen will tell you. Huasteca (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are combining sources to imply that between 8 and 9 January 2021 60 cm of snow accumulated. No source states that. Please make an effort to understand.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit Warring with a racist. Thank you. GAB^gab 02:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI again

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

say hi! Please, please stop this. Don't report people who aren't even edit warring for christ's sake! You can't ask someone to be topic banned for discussing sources on a talk page. Where are you from? North Korea? Huasteca (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that this attitude is likely part of the problem. This is a humorous example: are you a US Big Pharma shill on a mission to thwart competition (and have you stopped beating your wife)? Obviously, this isn't very constructive... —Paleo Neonate – 09:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Vicente Guerrero. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos dias, Axel Tbhotch No entiendo muy bien este mensaje. Serias tan amable de explicarme a que se refiere? No vi que estuvieramos en ningun conflicto editorial.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Also, please log in when you edit. S0091 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, S0091 please remove this template. That anonymous IP involved in an edit war was NOT me - I checked it and it seems to Geolocate to Indonesia. I did not violate any 3RR rule nor did I forget to sign in. Thank you Huasteca ([[User talk:#top|talk]]) 10:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Huasteca and apologies for my misunderstanding. I have struck the warning with a note and you are welcome to remove it entirely. S0091 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, S0091. Have a nice day.Huasteca (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the IP isn't you (I'm presuming you are telling us you do not live in Indonesia), I still count 4 edits by you that are whole or partial reversions over the past couple weeks. To me, it seems that while you aren't violating 3RR as a bright line rule, you are still edit warring on that page (as is the other user). Note that per the policy, Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. The page was protected in lieu of blocking both of you I presume - but if you continue to edit war (even if you don't violate 3RR) then you may risk being blocked either from a set of pages or altogether. I held out hope that you could edit outside of COVID without the battleground behavior and personal attacks, but you need to show you can or you'll end up with an indefinite block eventually. User:El C, as you're the one who protected the page this user was "slow warring" on, you may wish to comment here and/or at the ANI thread about this user. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berchanhimez You really come across as a very vindictive person. We are not interacting on Wikipedia. Are you seriously following me Talk Page and tracking my edits? Why are you stalking me? Please read WP:HOUND Huasteca (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your edit at ANI

Hi. I undid your recent edit to ANI. What I think happened is you had an old revision pulled up in your browser and it was in editmode for awhile. I think. Either way it removed a ton of text from other issues, so I recommend you retry what you were trying to do. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Addendum- I actually didn't undo your edit. I editconflicted too. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fixed. Thanks for the heads up Jip Orlando --Huasteca (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Php2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]