en User talk:EeuHP Archive 1

Bersani's photo

I don't understand why you always revert the image that I posted...I don't know...I also write a discussion in Talk:Italian general election, 2013 about my view...tell me depending on what you change ever the image with a worse one?? (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently filing a report against Nick.mon at the administrators' noticboard. --RJFF (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Italian general election, 2013 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW

Because apparently Nick.mon now agrees to use the picture you want in the articles, I'm going to close the report at WP:ANEW without imposing blocks. However, your behavior in the two articles was an egregious violation of WP:3RR. So, consider this a warning. If you ever edit-war in either of those articles - or any other article - again, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I admit that I have not acted properly, but the firsts days my edition was deleted by differents IP addressess (not by registred user) and this situation made me nervous. Next time I will be more attentive and will make sure that does not occur again this uncomfortable situation.--EeuHP (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but bear in mind that reverting an IP is no different from reverting a registered account. Unless there's an exemption, it still constitutes a revert with respect to edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet suspiscions

If you suspect an editor of using sockpuppets and have enough evidence to prove it, you may start a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: I have proposed the image that probably is a copyright violation for deletion from Wikimedia Commons. --RJFF (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your report looks ok. You should take a look there from time to time to answer if the processing administrators have any further questions. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New topic opened by exalted user

Please provide rationale for changes to existing photos i.e. your nonsensical change of Maduro's photo. If you have a reason for doing so, please state it in your edit summary or refrain from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical? The mouth of Maduro in the first photo is too open. In the new photo he appear seriously.--EeuHP (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find a single consensus on changing a photo which has existed since before our edits, you should choose a photo which does not have others within it. Given you simply want to repeatedly push your photo, it will obviously not find consensus. Chose a photo which confirms to wiki norms. To be frank, the photo is professional portrait quality and you are arguing semantics. Contibute in an actual way on this topic, or cease participation. Also I am curious your ability to write edits as it is clear that English is not your primary language. This begs the question if you should be commenting on the English language portion of his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope

Your addition to Pope has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By adding a copyrighted image that does not have a fair-use rationale, you violated copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Adding copyrighted material is a worse policy violation than many others because it is a potential legal problem for Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is taken from the Associated Press here and is copyrighted. It doesn't matter what another editor does or whether you understand copyright policy (please click the blue links above to read about the policy); now that you've been warned you need to stop adding copyrighted images. Cresix (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't continue re-adding the image to the article, there should not be a problem. But I needed to give you the above template so that you would stop. This is a very serious copyright violation. Cresix (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the speedy delete tag was on the image when you added it, but that's a red flag that there is a copyright problem. Don't think of the template above as a warning as much as a firm request that can avoid problems for both you and Wikipedia. In any event, thanks for the communication. Cresix (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis

OK, I was in a rush today and left my refs as URLs but you need to give a reason to delete material. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 7 vidas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Florentino Fernández (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) 11:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian PD primary election

Hi before doing other edit warrings can't we talk about the image? Nick.mon (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about use RenziMatteo conferenza 2012.jpg for Renzi and Bersani.JPG for Bersani? (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we can also mantain the two photos that I have posted, and I promise that I will never revert Bersani.JPG...That is a promise. (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okok, my only criticism to your photo of Bersani, is that it seems very sad, and absent-minded and next to him there were the photo of Berlusconi with a brilliant smile. That was my biggest reason in changing your photo. So we can use Bersani cropped.png and RenziMatteo conferenza 2012.jpg for the primary election and Bersani.JPG for national elections and also Bersani's page, ok? I repet my only criticism was his sad face compared to the smile of Berlusconi. (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bersani is a grey and serious man and his presidential aspirations are destroyed now. Berlusconi is a smiling old man-bottox and he is alive (in policy). The photos are very apropiate, I think. Well, I go to my work. Goodby.--EeuHP (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I remained by my opinion, now they are appropriate, but when we talk about politcs the photo would be neutral. Until we will have Berlusconi, Italy will be sad, but some italians don't think so, and he's still here...Goodbye and good work. Nick.mon (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EeuHP, when you are back from work and have some free time, please feel invited to state your opinion regarding Bersani's image at Talk:Italian general election, 2013. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

My image of Bersani has been deleted, how can we do? Which image shoudl we use above Bersani.JPG and Bersani cropped.png? Oh I have not change the image that we have chose in Bersani cropped.png, somebody do it, but not me. -- Nick.mon Nick.mon 15:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don not I stop? Excuse me, I have edit the image of Bersani that also you like, but it was not good for license and someone (NOT ME, as I tell you!) change it with Bersani cropped.png but you, as soon as you see it you immediately change it with your. We had reached an agreement, one to you, and one to me. Why do you ever change the image Bersani cropped.png even when I do not have to put it? When you have edit it so I react and I put my one of Bersani, but you have started (again) the edit warring, not me. I also wrote you a messege hours ago! But you have change it without talk in the talk page. How can we do? And now, that is not my falut. Nick.mon Nick.mon 18:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do not try to make funny of my English because also your is not the best...It is "fault" "colpa" I don't know how to say in your language. But do not change the topic. Why do you change Bersani cropped.png also when I do not insert it? What about using Bersani.JPG for election adn Bersani cropped.png for his page? Or the opposite... Nick.mon Nick.mon 20:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ah ah very funny. Ok, but I have not an hour to wait for you, I do my proposal, until you will decide, I have insert a "neutral" image, ok? My suggestion is simple, equal and clear! Why do not you like Bersani cropped.png? You are re-opening the edit warring! I want to stop it! Your image in a page, my one in the other! It is very simple, man!! -- Nick.mon talk 20:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly if Bersani cropped.png is used more of Bersani.JPG it will mean that it is better. We had reached an agreement, but you want everything. One to you and one to me in the English Wikipedia. Simpler than that is impossible. I want to stop the edit warring, but obviously you do not want to deal. -- Nick.mon talk 12:40 26 April 2013

Excuses

Hi, EeuHP, I am very sorry that we have arrived at this point, but finnally we agree (more or less), but I think that we must both make excuses. As far as I'm concerned, I apologize for this stupid edit warring. Excuse me. I hope that you will do the same. Kind regards. -- Nick.mon talk 14:36 26 April 2013

Compromise of Caspe

I'm eliminating the "participants" section because it's controversial, and it's best left for the article itself. Besides, the description of two kingdoms and one principality as "peninsular territories" leads to confusion.

In short, summarizing who were the participants and who they represented in a couple of lines is hard to achieve. And listing the name of the nine men without context is not helpful for the reader. IMO, it's better to leavit for the relelvant section, where it's properly explained.--RR (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think this new version is a significant improvement. Why do we need to have every single field? If there's one aspect that's nuanced and complex, why don't leave it for the text?--RR (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1940 & 1944 US Presidential elections

Please be aware, the listing of 1938 for Image:FDRoosevelt1938.png is not correct. The photo was taken on August 21, 1944. It was taken at the same photo session as this photo: [1] It can clearly be discerned as a later photo by FDR's emaciated appearance.THD3 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on photographs on biopages

Make your question to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce

--Miguelemejia (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think is better for you to refer your question to an impartial authority rather than to me, since you have been reverting images I have uploaded before and that creates a conflict

--Miguelemejia (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gonzalo de Castro, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlos Rodríguez, Antena 3 and Tom McGrath (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) 11:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arranged.--EeuHP (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santi Rodríguez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaén (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) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cristina Peña for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cristina Peña is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Peña until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JetBlast (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Cristina Peña. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. JetBlast (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Cristina Peña. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. JetBlast (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Enrique Arce

The article Enrique Arce has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. noq (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enrique Arce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jorge Castillo (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) 10:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Cristina Peña, you may be blocked from editing. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot t • c » 16:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Enrique Arce. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. noq (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nicholas II of Russia. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

You made a bold edit, and I reverted you to a previous stable version of the article (Petronilla of Aragon). Do you want to keep discussing this in edit summaries, or were you planning to open a discussion on the talk page? The images you keep adding are centuries late and have no claim to be resemblances of any sort of Petronilla or anything specific to her (for instance, they don't show her performing some specific action from her reign). They are no better than a drawing you or I could make of a woman with a crown and labelled "Petronilla". So what does it do for the reader? Nothing. It might be better than having not image at all, but we are not reduced to that scenario, since we have a perfectly good image of a contemporary charter issued by her relating to the most significant event of her reign: her abdication in favour of her son. It bears her signature and perhaps some of her very own words. It is incomparably more useful to any reader than a made-up image from centuries later, meant only to liven up some family tree. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your position is irrational. Can you tell me what rule prohibits putting portraits painted after the death of the person depicted? If this rule exist, the section "image" must be empty (because the document of abdication is not a image of Petronilla).--EeuHP (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EeuHP. You have new messages at Talk:Petronilla of Aragon.
Message added 15:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LukeSurl^{t c} 15:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 8 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I only put a picture of Petronilla of Aragon in her infobox. The user Srnec refuses to put images in the infobox without reasonable reason ((first he says that because the pictures are not old enough and after he says that because they are not quite beautiful)and he does not want any agreement. He even started another edit war against me (clear suspicion that he wants to provoke anger). I have tried to talk to him and get to compromise, but he refuses. He only accept his own version without modifications. If I have responsibility, he has more. If I have block a week, he deserves another.--EeuHP (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This template is not for lobbying for blocks on other editors. Focus on your own actions that caused the block, and how you will resolve similar situations in the future. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 8 October 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.

Petition best explained

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).

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

Request reason:

I know, user Kuru. I do not know English well and I was surprised by the decision. Now I will explain better. I know that I had an edit war recently, but in this new edit war I've done everything I could.

I reasoned with him.

I have explained several times my opinion (the infobox's section "image" must have a image of the person, not a image of a document -the documents must be in the body of the article-).

I have asked the opinion of a third person (the user LukeSurl)

I have accepted the edition that third party.

I made concessions (I thought the letter should not be in the article because it clogs).

What else I can do?

He, however, has not moved from his position. He has not accepted my edition, he has not accepted the edition of the third person, he has revived the old war edition aforementioned (he never visited the article by Nicholas II until now... a suspicious action, I think). How I can agree with him? If I lost patience, I apologize and promise to be more calm, but it's really difficult to talk to the hand and remain calm.

That's why I think I do not deserve a lock. I reasoned, I explained, I have made concessions ... and now I'm locked and he no.--EeuHP (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this is a justification for edit warring nor does it appear to be a commitment not to. As far as the other user is concerned, WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:27, 8 October 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.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:56, 16 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Why I'm blocked? What have I done? All I've done is remove a repeated photography (Mikola.jpg was placed in section Sainthood). And then, seeing that the other user still wants to impose his point of view, I accepted his version. He was opposed to Nicholas II, Tsar.jpg was the picture of the infobox (he prefered Mikola.jpg). And I've given up on it and I have placed the image in other place. I've finished the edit war, giving up my point of view. And I'm blocked? Unbelievable. I hope it was a misunderstanding. Because I don't understand that I may be blocked only by edit in the article (even for finish the war).--EeuHP (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as several days have passed without a response to my follow-up question below. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:51, 24 October 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.

EeuHP, do you agree to stop making changes to the images at Nicholas II of Russia, and to discuss changes on talk pages rather than reverting to your preferred version? If you're unsure what constitutes edit-warring, then it may be better for you to abide by a 0 revert rule. If an edit you make is reverted, engage the reverting editor in discussion instead of restoring your version. Would you be willing to do this? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer was yes, of course. But the question is nonsense. I was blocked by made a consensus proposal to the article where I gave in and the other user got what he wanted. Is not that a test of my will not to pursue wars editions? You have been unable to see this and you have me punished more severely when I had decided it was better to give or talk or wait. And you didn't have the same severity with the other users (who did the same than I and with no desire to reach an agreement). The question did not deserve to be answered. Good morning.--EeuHP (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter III of Aragon

What is your rationale for preferring the late portrait of Peter over a contemporary coin? Your edits are predominantly changes to lead images, yet you almost never leave an edit summary explaining them. You also reverted my change without even knowing what "contemporary" means or whether a certain image was contemporary with the subject or not. The reasons to prefer the coin are:

it is a contemporary artefact, giving information about Peter's reign (w/ a caption) and about how he was seen by his subjects in his lifetime
the coin does not mislead readers about the times of Peter III, as the portrait might
the silver coin on a white background is more striking than the somewhat garish portrait in low-resolution JPG format
it is far more likely that the limited detail of the coin is accurate (clean shaven and long-haired) than the greater detail of the imaginary portrait
the later portrait is one of a series of nearly indistinguishable royal portraits from two centuries later, it gives us no information about Peter or his reign, its sole purpose was decorative
what makes the coin an image of Peter is that that is when it was struck and what for, but what makes the later portrait an image of Peter is that somebody labelled it that way—they could just as easily have labelled an image of any other Aragonese king

In your last edit summary, you ask "if I have to choose between two unreal representations, I prefer the portrait", but nobody is asking you to choose or what you prefer. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, the problem is that we have different criteria.

You think the images should provide information about the lives of the persons and be of the age in which these people lived. I think the only thing to do is to give a visual representation of the person, the article is to the information.

I think that a portrait (even if wasn't painted during the live of the person) is most valid that a little image carved in a coin. The two representations have the same chance of not being 100% accurate, but at least one illustrates better than the other.

If not exist any portrait of this person, then I accept a coin's image or a poor drawing. But the present picture accomplish the role and I think that it must be more time.--EeuHP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already argued why the coin is a better illustration and you've just asserted the contrary. Do you have an argument? Why are your criteria better than mine? Srnec (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When I rebutted all your arguments in your talk page, I stated my reasons. But I do not want another long discussion with you. I offer consensus. Would you take a picture of the first part of the thirteenth century?--EeuHP (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are improvements over the 17th-century image, but not over the coin. At least one other editor agrees with me. Srnec (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not agree with your second comment, but I hope we have made a step in the right direction. This discussion is already too long. Both images are the best ones that meet your rigid standard of closeness to the character's life. Either both seem right.--EeuHP (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imposing your personal preference is not how it occurs on Wikipedia

I noticed in the message above that this is not the first time that you try to impose pictures on articles regardless of what others think. You are not allowed to impose your will. Both Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil are Featured Articles. They were reviewed by several editors. Stop with your edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen is aware of the three-revert rule. Are you? You've reverted four times on both Pedro I and Pedro II in the last 24 hours. You should undo your last revert and seek dispute resolution, such as discussion on the talk page or a request for comment. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can arrive to consensus. But the posture of Lecen is very dogmatic.

Pedro I of Brazil. I have only slightly increased the size of the image and change the phrase by other more accurate. ¿Result? War.

Pedro II of Brazil. I put a featured and most valued image that is better than the actual, but he said war.

How can we begin to reach consensus? Let's talk about it. --EeuHP (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter III of Aragon. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a change, I'm guilty for wanting to change. If he makes a change, I'm guilty for wanting to keep the previous version. Amazing.--EeuHP (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Peter III of Aragon. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. See a permanent link to the report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition of unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

This punishment is absolutely unfair and inequitable. First reason. Comparation of real situations: * User A changes an article. User B opposes. Edit warring. Both violate the rule of three reversals. User A is punished. *User Z changes an article . User A opposes. Edit warring. Both violate the rule of three reversals. User A is punished. Is this sensible? In addition, this block for a month is based on that I already was blocked for a week time ago. But this block was an error (because the edition that was considerate a reversion was other different change).--EeuHP (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been edit warring for several days against two different editors. Prior to this block, you were blocked three times for edit warring in October 2013, once for 36 hours, next for one week, and last for two weeks, so the duration of this block is justifiable. As for the rest, WP:NOTTHEM. Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (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.

By the way, the user Lecen just violated the rule of the three reversals for the third time in two days. [2].

The edition that Lencen has reversed is not mine, had been in place since 2011 at least (Srnec changed it three days ago and so had edit warring). If there is a decent user, I would appreciate that restore it.--EeuHP (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the blocking admin. Would you like to explain all the block notices in User talk:EeuHP/Archive 1? You believe you were correct all those other times too? It does not seem that you *ever* wait for consensus before changing an image, even in a Featured article. I am wondering now why this block was not indefinite. It does not appear you will ever change. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moral lessons are appropriate when whoever says comply with morality. And you have not restored the pre-conflict edition in Peter III and has punished someone for doing one thing and another person who has done the same thing (or worse) is not punished.--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

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).

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

Request reason:

I talk about me, Bbb23, not about others.
First. Blocking two weeks was wrong because the user that imposed me the blocking thought wrongly that I reopen a war in the article Nicholas II of Russia, when I made other different change (yielding to my opponent). Strictly speaking, I was blocked by accept the point of view of the other user. I left because I was incredulous and I could not answer a question that was asked and I would have canceled the blockade. Really was an ugly affair.

I committed an error in the discussion of the brazilian emperors (not in Peter III of Aragon, because Srnec changed an edition accepted by all from 2011 without consensus). I'm impatient and I haven't friends to do the reversal Number 4 in my place, but it is not fair to pay for my mistake a more expensive price because of the mistake of another user.

Another mistake was made again ... and it is serious. It is assumed that rules are the same for all on wikipedia. I do not understand why someone no acts against an infringer just because in the other side there's another infringer. It would be appreciated that someone will act according to law, and if nobody wants to do it, at least I was unblocked for a day to file the appropriate complaint. After all, the evidence is clear and there is no favoritism here, I think.--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, quite unambiguously. The block is as long as it is because you seem to have made a habit of edit warring, judging from your block log. You seem to misunderstand our WP:3RR policy if you think "I haven't friends to do the reversal Number 4 in my place" is in any way beneficial; it's not reversal number 4 that constitutes edit warring, it's all other reversions beside the first one. Even though you've been blocked now four times for WP:EDITWAR, you don't seem to comprehend that we really mean it. Don't edit war. Next block might be much much longer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:54, 29 January 2014 (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.

(The door opens.)

Hello, EeuHP. We are some administrators. You are blocked during a month.

_Why?

Edit warring and violation of the rule of three reversals.

_Fuck. Could you remove two weeks of the month? In October I was blocked for this time without a reason.

No, the rules are sacred. You broke a rule, you don't understand our policies, you must be punished severely until you learn the lesson. The rules are unbreakable.

_Oh, well. And Srnec?

What?

_Srnec. My opponent in some wars where I participated. In this last war, he removed an edition of 2011 without consensus, didn't answer my offer of consensus, put his change other time... and the most important, he made five consecutive editions.

So what?

_If I was blocked because I made four consecutive editions, why he is free like a bird? I don't say lies, you can see the evidences in the down list.

You committed violation of the rule of the three reversals.

_Yes, but he also. Is not normal that, when I make a change, the previous version has priority and, when I defend the previous version, the change has priority.

I do not care. We're talking about you, this is your punishment.

_Oh, well. But you have the evidences. Will you do something about it?

Something what?

_Srnec broke the rule of three reversals. He has almost as many past as I do. The rules are unbreakable... you know?

(The door closes)

--EeuHP (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evidences

User Srnec violated the rule of three reversals:

First (change without consensus of an accepted edition from 2011).
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth (he ignored my proposal of consensus and made the change again).

--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Having most of the i sentence passed, I request the unblocking. If someone is concerned about the possibility of more edit wars, I say that I will stick to the rules scrupulously, with caution and paying attention to detail for not ignore any aspect.--EeuHP (talk) 4:31 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

Six additional days' time is probably not going to accomplish any more than already has been, and further problems can be dealt with as/if they arise, I think. - Vianello (Talk) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR requests

OK, I'm going to attempt to discuss this with you on your talk page, as we've had no luck getting you to understand the issues so far.

The issues in question occurred a month ago. If you want to make a 3RR case, it needs to be within a day or so of the incident occurring.
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This means that blocks are not used to punish people for wrongdoing, but to stop any further disruption from a given editor.
Opening one stale AN3 case is not a good move. Immediately refiling it after the first one closed as "stale" is disruptive. Spamming your case on ANI, a couple of other Wikipedia talk-space pages, and several administrator's talk pages is incredibly disruptive, and you are quite lucky that you didn't get blocked for these actions.
Consensus can change. Just because something has been in an article for two years does not mean that it has to stay there indefinitely, and particularly not if something more relevant appears, or any other kind of improvement. This is not an opinion on which image was "better", just a note.
You have a history of edit warring, and being sanctioned for exactly this reason. This is something you need to address, as otherwise you leave yourself open to being sanctioned.

I hope you take this into account, and move on from this issue to pastures new. This is a very big encyclopedia, why fixate yourself on your old issues? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that the issues occurred a month ago, but I couldn't put the complaint because I was blocked one month. I asked someone to do it, but nobody did. So, it's not fair.
I've Committed Offenses two and I have not Been apperceived. If I was blocked by the same offense, why he not?
Conseus can change, but the image of Peter III of Aragon was punt in 2011 without oposition. And Srnec change the image without consensus. Moreover, the user Lecen remove the image previous of the discussion. Why when I change an image, the image previous should prevail until the consensus and when I defend the previous version the change must prevail?
Yes, I have an historial and I was sanctioned. But he also has an historial and he is not sanctioned because the historial is "old". I don't understand. If you are lucky and you do not get caught, you are free?
Yes, this is a great encyclopedia and I'm surprised that no one wants to punish a clear violation.--EeuHP (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the other user in question have been blocked at that time? Maybe. But this was a month ago. You had three previous blocks for edit-warring in this area, and the other user had none; that is probably why you got blocked, and they did not. You cannot file complaints on Wikipedia when they are "stale"; this is not like real life, and Wikipedia:There is no justice is probably a good thing for you to read. Again, just because no-one opposed the image in 2011 does not mean that it has a divine right to stay in there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he should have been blocked at the time, but I couldn't put the complaint in due course. It's a vicious circle.
About the image, I do not ask "divine right". I'm just saying there has to be a discussion with reasons and votes and after a while, the preferred choice of the majority must be placed. But so far, the previous version should prevail.
I've been blocked four times and he should have been blocked two times. But if his infractions are not quantified, it will always have a clean curriculum and the administrators will give him the reason forever. It's not fair. He did two violations of the rule, he doesn't worry and he is proud of his hability for outwit the the administrators and the locks. Really is too much ask that a user who violated the rules receives the legal sanction?--EeuHP (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, whether he should've been blocked at the time is a moot point when it is a month later. You're right that there should have been a discussion, but let's not forget, it takes at least two to edit war, and you were certainly not innocent. At the time, you were deemed to be the worst offender of the two, which is why you were blocked and not them. Honestly, the best thing for you to do is just to leave this in the past; accept that maybe you were done an injustice, and move on. There's so much to do here that rehashing a month-stale dispute isn't worth your time. And I'd ignore anything Srnec says about you on their userpage as well; particularly as they're not saying they're proud of their actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation. While Srnec and I discussed in Petronilla of Aragon, Srnec reopened an old war mine in Nicholas II of Russia. An administrator see the article of Nicholas II and thought "a recidivist user against a user with clean curriculum... block for the recidivist". This was the reason why I couldn't present a complaint in this moment. And now, the story begin again. And I must accept it other time?--EeuHP (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to either accept it, or just simply forget about it, because continuing to dwell on it isn't going to help you. Just because you were discussing something in one place, it doesn't mean that exempts you from discussion elsewhere on separate or related issues, I'm afraid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is not an injustice, it is worse. Where does it say that the offenses expire? What is the limit?--EeuHP (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you earlier, 3RR cases need to be made within a day or two of the rule being broken. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, not care that I was completely unable to file the complaint at the time.--EeuHP (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for disruptive editing, including violating WP:3RR again at Peter III of Aragon and filing bogus reports at WP:AN3. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

EeuHP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Now I find out I'm locked. I leave a few days to rest and this happens. Honestly, administrator, do what you want, but one thing is clear. In case of conflict, must prevail the previous edition until the consensus. This edition was made in January 12, 2014. The discussion begin in January 25, when Srnec changed the edition after 3 years in force. But it seems that nobody cares about this. I didn't know that if two users argue and one of them is blocked the discussion ends and the edition of the user without lock "win" and turn into the "previous edition". I was just trying to enforce the rules. I wanted to restore the previous edition and I have opened a space for discussion on the Talk Page and I have promised to respect the outcome. 1 On the other hand, I have not submitted two bogus reports. The infractions of Srnec were totally true. Two evasions of 3RR, that I couldn't report in the moment because I was locked. Apparently, the infractions expire within days. I did not know this and it still seems me outrageous, so I presented the report twice. I couldn't believe it, sincerely. Did not seem right that a user with two offenses have a clean expedient just because no one saw him or because nobody wanted to see him (or because who saw him couldn't give the notice). Still I can't believe it. But "lapsed" is not "bogus". My messages to other administrators were the result of it. I just asked for a confirmation or help for justice. When somebody told me that I must stop, I stopped sending messages. And, according to the answer, there is no justice, only solutions. Very well. So I decide to let a week to let the spaces of debate on Talk Pages deliver results. More opinions, more arguments, majorities configuration, other alternatives for respond and reason... and now I'm blocked again. The next day of leave it. Bad luck. In short, I wanted that the rules that I knew were respected. I may have done better or worse, but it's what I've tried (although the opposition has been insistent). In the other situations, I haven't committed offense or I haven't caused any prejudice because any issues outside the specific runway was short and quickly corrected. Therefore, I request the unblock.--EeuHP (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. Since you have several times in the past been blocked for edit warring, you really should have taken the trouble to find out what the policy on edit warring is, but you have clearly not done so. For some reason you evidently think that there is an exemption to the edit warring policy for anyone who is repeatedly reverting to the version of an article before a dispute started ("In case of conflict, must prevail the previous edition until the consensus") but that is not supported by any policy or guideline, nor by accepted practice. You say "I was just trying to enforce the rules", but even if the "rules" you refer to had been Wikipedia policy, rather than just your own opinion, that would not have been a justification for edit warring. (Incidentally, if the policy on edit warring were changed to include an exemption for anyone who believes they are "trying to enforce the rules", then the policy would become unworkable, because in a very large proportion of edit wars both sides believe they are trying to enforce "rules".) As for the reports you filed at the edit warring notice board, there were several reasons why they were inappropriate. Reporting an editor for an edit war in which you too have been involved is rarely a good move. Even if at first you mistakenly thought that we block people as a punishment for past actions, rather than as prevention of actions that are still continuing, that does not justify the fact that you persisted after that had been explained to you. Considering your past history of blocks for edit warring, your further continuation of edit warring, your misuse of reports on edit warring on other editors, your failure to accept explanations given as to why what you were doing is unacceptable, and other disruptive editing, the block is entirely justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

1. [3]

Things I've learned at en.wikipedia

When I made a change and I want that the edition appears, I am a user disruptive because I don't respect the previous edition. When I defend the previous edition, the concept "previous edition" means nothing. Or the dates are ignored and I'm the disruptive again. The two solutions are good.

Although it is not written anywhere, exist a rule that says that any offense expires in a few days. If you can not give notice of the offense (because you were blocked, ill or without computer for a mechanical failure...), bad luck for you. Here solutions, not justice. And that Pope Time erases the sins is a good solution.

Open spaces for dialogue and discussion and pledge to respect the result is not a sign of wanting to do things right.

Apparently appreciate the intention of a user is not feasible, but ignore two serious violations of the rules is perfectly acceptable.

Administrators tend to be more ruthless with solitary users than with organized groups.

If a user with a clean record discuss with another user with a non-clean record the administrator only monitor and punish the user with "dirty" record. The other user will not have problems.

Enjoy your toy, friendly and honest gentlemen.--EeuHP (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months for probable sock puppetry, retaliatory reports at WP:AN3, personal attacks, and false claims. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]