User talk:El Machete Guerrero

February 2009

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Reggaeton, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. NJGW (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A minor edit is a spelling change, insertion of whitespace, or switching out a word that some one used wrong. Any edit which changes the meaning of or adds text is not minor. NJGW (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful, you're at wp:3rr. It's probably time for you to start discussing this on the talk page. NJGW (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He made his 3rd revert after I went to sleep. Remember that this rule is about 24 hours. I just have this page watch listed because some one asked for a 3rd opinion... since it was an invalid request I said so and didn't take sides. I did keep it watchlisted though, and am merely trying to keep you informed that if an admin were watching he would probably block both of you for edit warring over the last few days. You should try to gain consensus on the talk page rather than reverting any more. NJGW (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, you will be blocked for vandalism. Editing others' protection requests is wholly unacceptable and is seen as harassment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made an ANI filing regarding your behavior tonight: WP:ANI#Reggaeton, El Machete and 74.248.71.191. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down on the ANI discussion. Jeremy has not done anything obviously wrong here. Nor has the IP editor - you have not explained why you keep reverting their edits. You need to stop making acusations and explain the edit problems in more detail. The threats are not helping and if you keep it up you'll probably be blocked.

Calm down, explain. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - this is a last warning. Stop attacking Jeremy and explain why you have been edit warring with the IP address on the article, and why their changes are inaccurate or improper. If you attack anyone further I will block you for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You continued to refuse to provide evidence that the changes made by the IP address were, in fact, vandalism. That you and they were going back and forth doesn't mean that their changes were wrong or were vandalism. Having investigated those, and not seen any evidence that they were vandalism, this is a simple content argument. As you chose not to discuss the content dispute but merely edit war, 18 times at least, you are blocked for 72 hours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

You are full of it!!! I did answer why I thought it was vandalism here and then reminded you again here, READ! The fact that you continue to use "they" in your blocking comment and the HUGE fact that you did not block the IPs and only me shows your HUGE bias towards me and for that I will report you. You had every possible chance to do the right thing and chose not to and for that you need to be dealt with. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I do not believe this block is unjustified as I broke policy but I do believe the blocking admins behaviour is completely inappropriate he should be dealt with accordingly. He made a fake case against me for a checkuser with no evidence whatsoever showing his bias against me. He then completely ignored my replies to him on the ANI for reggaeton and said I did not reply when in fact I did. Then just now he lied about blocking the IP who had evaded a previous block and gamed the system with no consequence. Then he persisted in saying "they" when he very well knows it was one person making the edits in a weak veil to disguise his misconduct. He also now has his mates coming and harrassing me on my talkpage whislt I am blocked attempting to scare me. This has not been handled in an appropriate way and at the very least all IPs should be blocked aswell as it takes two to tango. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I do not believe this block is unjustified as I broke policy but I do believe the blocking admins behaviour is completely inappropriate he should be dealt with accordingly. He made a fake case against me for a checkuser with no evidence whatsoever showing his bias against me. He then completely ignored my replies to him on the ANI for reggaeton and said I did not reply when in fact I did. Then just now he lied about blocking the IP who had evaded a previous block and gamed the system with no consequence. Then he persisted in saying "they" when he very well knows it was one person making the edits in a weak veil to disguise his misconduct. He also now has his mates coming and harrassing me on my talkpage whislt I am blocked attempting to scare me. This has not been handled in an appropriate way and at the very least all IPs should be blocked aswell as it takes two to tango. [[User:El Machete Guerrero|El Machete Guerrero]] ([[User talk:El Machete Guerrero#top|talk]]) 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not believe this block is unjustified as I broke policy but I do believe the blocking admins behaviour is completely inappropriate he should be dealt with accordingly. He made a fake case against me for a checkuser with no evidence whatsoever showing his bias against me. He then completely ignored my replies to him on the ANI for reggaeton and said I did not reply when in fact I did. Then just now he lied about blocking the IP who had evaded a previous block and gamed the system with no consequence. Then he persisted in saying "they" when he very well knows it was one person making the edits in a weak veil to disguise his misconduct. He also now has his mates coming and harrassing me on my talkpage whislt I am blocked attempting to scare me. This has not been handled in an appropriate way and at the very least all IPs should be blocked aswell as it takes two to tango. [[User:El Machete Guerrero|El Machete Guerrero]] ([[User talk:El Machete Guerrero#top|talk]]) 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not believe this block is unjustified as I broke policy but I do believe the blocking admins behaviour is completely inappropriate he should be dealt with accordingly. He made a fake case against me for a checkuser with no evidence whatsoever showing his bias against me. He then completely ignored my replies to him on the ANI for reggaeton and said I did not reply when in fact I did. Then just now he lied about blocking the IP who had evaded a previous block and gamed the system with no consequence. Then he persisted in saying "they" when he very well knows it was one person making the edits in a weak veil to disguise his misconduct. He also now has his mates coming and harrassing me on my talkpage whislt I am blocked attempting to scare me. This has not been handled in an appropriate way and at the very least all IPs should be blocked aswell as it takes two to tango. [[User:El Machete Guerrero|El Machete Guerrero]] ([[User talk:El Machete Guerrero#top|talk]]) 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

March 2009

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:El Machete Guerrero. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your attack on Georgewilliamherbert is uncalled for. If you disagree with a block, you can contest this block, make sure you read the text. However, I see your chances as very dim given your egregious behavior. Cerejota (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How in God's good name did I attack him?! Don't make unfounded accusations against me and kick me while I'm down. This does not present you in a good light and is uncalled for. And there is no need for your opinion as no one is asking for it, especially the User whom you have left this message. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're attacking him. You've made comments about his syntactic choices (and by the way, in case you haven't learned it, "they" is frequently used in English as a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun when referring to humans and organizations). You're using blatantly threatening language ("you need to be dealt with").

So? How is highlighting his choice of plural "they" over singular "him/her" attacking him? I did not know they is used as a gender neutral replacement for him or her, I only knew it was a plural word indicating more than one person which I am sure other people have read to be the same. As for threatening language, "dealt with", how else can I say this? I mean exactly what I say and he too has said similar things in his threats to block me which if you are telling me "dealt with" is threatening lanaguage I will provide you with his "threatening language". El Machete Guerrero (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a semantic argument with you. The point is that you have been extremely incivil to almost everyone who has attempted to resolve your dispute, and most recently with George. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, you definitely need to review the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. As George has repeatedly said, you need to provide some convincing evidence that the IP's edits were vandalistic in nature (in terms of the "official definition") or else you just look like another edit warrior. WP:3RR does not list non-obvious vandalism in its list of exceptions, and as the people at WP:ANI have been trying to make it clear, it is not obvious that the IP's edits were vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And once more for you I did provide you evidence of him removing content which I told George twice. This is what I labelled as vandalism, the removal of legitimate additions to comply with his POV. I have said this more then once and I am not a fan of repeating myself. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, the IPs have been blocked via a rangeblock. There has been zero bias against you here, and your unsubstantiated claims thereof do not help your case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean? Because all I know is that when I go to the following three IPs I do not see a block by George. User talk:74.248.71.191, User talk:74.248.71.213, User talk:74.248.71.136

Vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". You haven't shown that any substantial evidence that the IP editor was either compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, or even if so, that he/she was doing it intentionally. This is and has not been a matter of vandalism, but of a content dispute.

Well I took removal to be my reason labelling his removal of content as vandalism, because he constantly removed content which not only me but Largoplazo and Warrington all reverted. Are you telling me it is not vandal? Because removal is what stuck with me and is why I kept repeating it in my reason. This is besides the point anyway, as I was not blocked for using the word vandalism. I was blocked for breaking the 3RR. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:RANGE for what a range block is. It doesn't show up as an individual block, but the IPs are blocked. It might also help to understand what a subnet is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)