User talk:Captain El Classico

February 2021

Your recent editing history at Martin Bormann 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Captain_El_Classico reported by User:Diannaa (Result: ). Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Please stop re-adding your edit over the objections of three other editors. There's a discussion thread open on the article talk page. Please don't restore your preferred version of the article until you've talked to the other editors and justified why your version is better. At this point nobody agrees that it is, and you if you continue on your present course, will likely be blocked for edit warring.— Diannaa (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Captain El Classico, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Captain El Classico! 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 experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Martin Bormann

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Captain El Classico, please stop - you need to post on the talk page before making massive changes to a Good Article. A lot of this is the same material which was recently removed - please visit the talk page and make a case for your changes. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has advised me that a lot of the content you added is copied from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judborma.asp, a copyright webpage. Adding copyright was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, or you will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report filed at WP:ANI

I have filed a report about your editing behavior at WP:ANI, you will find the discussion here. Please go there to make whatever comments you wish to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

On the chance that you do not understand what's happening, let me explain. You have been reported to the administrators'/incidents noticeboard because your editing behavior is in some ways in violation of Wikipedia's policies and behavioral norms:

WP:Verifiability requires that any information on Wikipedia be verifiable by way of citations from WP:reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, a YouTube video is not considered to be a reliable source.

WP:Copyvio. Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material to be copied and pasted into our articles. A short amount of material can be quoted, as the source is properly identified. Even close paraphrasing of copyrighted information is not allowed. If there is information you read in a copyrighted source, rephrase it in your own words before you add it to any article, and be sure to add a citation to the source.

WP:Edit warring. Edit warring occurs when you add something to an article, someone else removes it, and you restore it. The best practive is to follow WP:BRD, which says that when your Bold edit has been Reverted, your next step is not to restore the material, it is to open a Discussion on the article talk page. In edit warring, more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period is a bright-line offense that will get you blocked, but multiple reverts even over a longer period of time are likely to result in a block, as such behavior is WP:Disruptive.

On Wikipedia, WP:Communication is required. When warnings and other comments are posted on your talk page, you are expected not only to adjust your behavior accordingly, but to respond to the other editor. It is not unusual for an editor who never responds on their talk page to be blocked simply for that.

The articles you have been editing, related to Nazis and Nazism, attract a lot of WP:vandalism and non-neutral editing, so the editors who watch over them are very pro-active about protecting them. That means that your edits to these articles are going to be closely scrutinized, and reverted if there is anything wrong with them. Because these articles are vulnerable, and your edits to them have all been reverted, I have asked that you be WP:Topic banned from them for 6 months, to give you time to show that you can be a productive editor by contributing to articles about other subjects. Whether this topic ban will be imposed or not depends on the discussion (if any) on AN/I, and a decision by an administrator. If you have anything to say about your situation, I urge you to go to the link above and post your comment(s) to the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there is discussion now about your possibly being indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you have any interest in continuing to edit here, it would be very much in your interest to go here and ake an argument as to why you shouldn't be indefinitely blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]