This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luis Napoles (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 15 March 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:38, 15 March 2009 by Luis Napoles (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Racism in Cuba, you will be blocked from editing. () Luis Napoles (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. ()
You wrote "as far as I know,[REDACTED] doesn't operate by posting many different estimates from many different people, but by posting the information from the most reliable source". You are wrong, please read verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
Minority Rights Group International (along with all the other source that the use same figure) is certainly reliable. If you delete content across articles like you have done in most of your edits, you will get blocked. Your "anarchist archives" looks far from reliable in relation to the subject at hand, however, none has removed as you can see. The blog post by some "ZSpace" user which you cite in censorship in Cuba is not a reliable source. No source is a valid reason to remove reports by Reporters Without Borders. Luis Napoles (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Your repeated large deletions in several articles have left no other option that letting administrators intervene.Luis Napoles (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
3RR
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; 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.Luis Napoles (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)