User talk:Huysmanii

December 2012

Hello, I'm Webclient101. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The Wachowskis because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Webclient101^talk 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huysmanii, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Huysmanii! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Once you've posted the article to Wikipedia, it belongs to the community, not to you personally — and that means that you don't get to make special rules about who else is or isn't allowed to edit it, but rather anyone can edit it for any necessary maintenance or cleanup that needs to be done. And if you were just trying to make a funny because of my username, you missed. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hey, I thought we were going to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page, and I'm disappointed to see that you're attempting to Edit War your content into place; that's against Wikipedia guidelines and Policy. Please read over WP:BRD and WP:3RR, if you violate WP:3RR, you risk being Blocked. Let's discuss like the reasonable people we are, eh? :) Dreadstar ☥ 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I've reported you to the Edit Warring Noticeboard for violating WP:3RR here. Dreadstar ☥ 02:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring, if anyone is you are, as you were the one to erase my good faith, well-documented edits. You must understand the Yoanni Sanchez article is not your personal fiefdom, other people, and not just you and OLIVER, can and should be allowed to contribute.--Huysmanii (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not only edit warring per WP:EDITWAR, but you've violated WP:3RR. You should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Consensus, multiple editors have disputed your proposed content and we are attempting to discuss it with you on the article's talk page. You do not Own the article and must find consensus instead of trying to force your edits into place by edit warring. You can respond here, I've got your talkpage watchlisted and will see it.. Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were not engaged in any dialogue with me, if you had been you would have responded to my last lengthy comments on the Sanchez discussion page.--Huysmanii (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring and that's unacceptable. I cannot even begin to address your false accusation that I'm not engaged in any dialogue with you. And no need to duplicate this discussion on my talk page, please keep the thread together here on your talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 03:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just repeating yourself, focus on my last response on the Sanchez discussion page, also I was never edit warring, I was continuing to work on my edits, based on a source, Lamrani, used in related wikipedia articles. Just because you personally don't like the content of the edits doesn't mean they're not grounded in fact.--Huysmanii (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you'll review the Sanchez discussion page you'll notice that other editors have previously attempted similar edits, my edits are consequently not aberrant or outliers, in fact they've received historically as much support as you're receiving now with Olive, i.e. 2 for, 2 seemingly against.--Huysmanii (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ángel Carromero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Yoani Sánchez. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

i was not edit warring, those that accused me of it were, i used sources that have been uncontroversially used for other articles pertaining to Cuba. in addition, and generally speaking, this article is woefully unbalanced as it does not contain one single source that is critical of Sanchez, of which there are many independent and authoritative voices of this kind. Huysmanii (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not edit warring? What were these, then: 1, 2, 3, 4? 4 reverts on the same page within 24 hours mean an automatic block. You've been warned. Max Semenik (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2013 (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.

It's actually five reverts in 24 hours, including this one with the four above, reverting back to this version. Dreadstar ☥ 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel the need to count past 4:) Max Semenik (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your edit warring or you will be blocked again. Engage in the talk page discussion instead. Dreadstar ☥ 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your rush?. We have real life things to take care of and things like this take time to discuss and find consensus. There is No Deadline, so please slow your roll. Pushing like that only makes it look like you believe you WP:OWN the article. Dreadstar ☥ 21:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i'll be working on other areas of the article while we eventually get around to stating the fact that she is mentioned in the leaked cables.--Huysmanii (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss any changes or additions to the article before adding it to the article. Dreadstar ☥ 22:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reported you once again to the 3RR noticeboard: [1]. Dreadstar ☥ 22:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huysmanii. I'd repeat per this comment: [2] You, so far, are attempting to add content that has been disputed by three editors while discussion is on going and have already been blocked once for attempting to edit war that content into the article. Please honour the collaborative process on the Yoani Sanchez talk page before adding content. While opinion and editor point of view are welcome in discussion on a talk page they are not in an article. Editors on that talk page are not scrutinizing content because they "like" or dislike the point of view, they are dealing with content which is under represented in the mainstream press, so what and how much of that kind of content must be carefully calibrated per its weight in the article.(olive (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Controversial changes

Don't take it personally, my changes I mean, also any changes I make to the article, new and different changes, that you feel are controversial, you can always revert. Relax, don't get so worked up about them, only good can come from new perspectives and points of views.--Huysmanii (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anything personally and I welcome new perspectives and points of view; however I do not approve or appreciate edit warring on a Biography of a living person when you continue to try and add poorly sourced controversial content. Please read what Olive has written just above, she hits the nail right on the head. I don't want to be reverting your changes, so please discuss them on the article's talk page, find consensus and then we can add material we've all agreed upon that meets Wikipedia Policy and guidelines. That's the way WP works, by consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People are adding things to articles all the time, i can't be checking with you every time i add something new, if you feel my new additions merit reverting then revert, just try not to lose your sense and the appearance of impartiality when making those reverts, especially when reverting indisputable facts such as Sanchez's mention in the leaked cables, a fact that has been referenced in published books and articles. So let's all try to be impartial and in doing so make wikipedia a truly global resource, not just one reflecting certain powerful, though not empirical, perspectives or interests.--Huysmanii (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply here, if you must - I'd like to keep this thread together in one place. I suggest you discuss all this on the article's talk page and not just with me. We need to follow Wikipedia policies, and that's exactly what I'm doing. At this point, it's obvious that your additions are highly contentious and you'll need to stop trying to edit war them into the article; you need to discuss them first - and not just with me, but with all the editors involved on that talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW

I don't think you're grasping how Wikipedia works. You were blocked for edit-warring. Immediately, after expiration of the block, you resumed editing the article and getting into another edit-war despite many attempts to get you to stop and discuss any changes you want to make to the article on the article talk page. Your attitude that you can just make those changes, and if others don't like them, they can revert, and somehow this is healthy is NOT the way things work around here.

Because you have not reverted the article for about a day, I'm going to give you an opportunity to avoid another block. You must agree NOT to edit the article at all for 7 days. You are welcome to propose changes on the talk page. If you agree to these conditions, I will not block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You never accepted these terms, either here or on my talk page. Worse, your edit, which I reverted, to the article talk page did not bode well for you as an editor at Wikipedia. Indeed, if you persist in these kinds of comments/threats, you will probably be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Yoani Sánchez. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended your block for a month from now because of persistent block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]