User talk:TheLastTrastamara

Welcome!

Hi TheLastTrastamara! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Mreatwashacked (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

When the changes you make are opposed by other editors, especially multiple editors, the right thing to do is to explain your position on the talk page. Edit-warring and insulting will not get you far on Wikipedia. You have already broken the three-revert rule. If you insist on reverting, you will be reported. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna Who are these "multiple editors"? From the looks of it, it's just you. If you insist on dragging the wikipage back to the "certain looks" it once had, you too won't get far on Wikipedia. I'm the one making constant improvements and additions so go ahead and report me. TheLastTrastamara (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder. The first person you reverted today for the same thing was Unlimitedlead. You can indeed expect to be reported if you do not revert your latest revert and engage in talk page discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna I more than willing to engage in talk page discussion because I'm honestly curious as to why you insist on making an article less informative. But I won't be reverting my last edit and you're more than welcome to report me, because again, I'm not the one insisting for 'less'. TheLastTrastamara (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one insisting on more, however, and so per WP:ONUS policy you are the one who should convince your fellow editors that the addition is an improvement. The information you added to the infobox is verifiable, but the policy states that "not all verifiable information must be included". It points out that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That is you. It would be very disappointing if you insisted on knowingly ignoring policies. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna Alright, I'm willing to convince you (and any other editor who feels the same way), within the realm of reason, on why the honorific titles "Rex Catholicissimus" & "Rex Hierosolymitanus" and the offices of "Count of Roussillon and Cerdanya" and "Regent of the Crown of Castile" deserve to be on the infobox. Would you be willing to listen before making an abrupt revert? Also, I would like to apologize for my abrasive attitude beforehand. TheLastTrastamara (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would be willing to listen. I have been almost begging for it. Reverting your last, rule-breaking revert would go a long way in proving that you understand the basic principles behind the project and wish to work with other editors. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear I'll be honest. I'm very new to wiki-editing and not really familiar with all the rules. But I believe the core purpose of Wikipedia is distributing verified extensive information on certain people/things. I have done that. I've contributed to one specific wikipage for the last 4 months. This particular wikipage had been left neglected for years before I revived it. Now one editor is persistent on reducing the information displayed on the wikipage on the sole grounds that it had "a certain look for years". Is making additions wrong? I neither started an edit-war nor do I want to be in one. TheLastTrastamara (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can be assured that your contributions to the article are appreciated. Your present attitude, however, leaves a lot to be desired. You are not dealing with one editor but two (now possibly three). Accusing fellow editors of vandalism for objecting to some of your edits is bad. When your fellow editors object to a change you've made, you are expected to convince them on the talk page that the edit is an improvement to the article. See WP:BRD policy. Forcing your way and insulting is not the way things get accomplished. Surtsicna (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheLastTrastamara, you should self-revert, since you are at 4RR, and engage in discussion on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Your recent editing history at Ferdinand II of Aragon 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; read about 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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf I'll be raising this issue in the talk page. TheLastTrastamara (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]