User talk:Huayna 65

June 2020

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sérgio Vieira de Mello without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ifnord (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sérgio Vieira de Mello, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Only Warning

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sérgio Vieira de Mello, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Sérgio Vieira de Mello 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RedRiver660 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring

Huayna 65, you must immediately stop edit warring. That will get you blocked NO MATTER how right you might be. You also must stop editing the article because of your COI and only use the article's talk/discussion page. (When you get more experience here, there are certain conditions under which a COI person can carefully edit an article.) Discuss the issues without attacking other editors. If you can convince them you are right, then they can make the changes you desire. You will have to back up your arguments with reliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain the situation at Talk:Sérgio Vieira de Mello. We cannot use non-public sources for content here. Providing documents directly to editors won't help you. As you can see from that talk page, I too have concerns about the issues, so I sympathize with you. Please participate there. -- Valjean (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thank you for your advice, I just did so and hope someone will make the corrections.