Thanks for uploading File:H2TPS.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading File:H2SPTPS.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edits cannot be considered vandalism. Yours seem vandalism, and based on your talk page I see you have gotten several warnings already. I don't see what the problem is with letting the Arepa de Pabellón be the default picture. MuammarElkhatib (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Colombiaball (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it means that you also should be banned based on this description. It makes no sense if it comes from you. This type of determinations should come from a third-party, otherwise they are useless. Feel free to involve an admin. MuammarElkhatib (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Who are the editors who raised a "consensus" about the page I edited?
2) Why do your changes in the 24 hours-period not represent a violation of the terms while mine, you claim they do?
Sadly, Wikipedia is still vandalized, and people impose their information and just report you to admins as they, please. I have been donating to money to Wikipedia for more than 5 years and I definitely will stop doing so. MuammarElkhatib (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very unprofessional reply by --jpgordon. That was no explanation at all. Is this a dictatorship scheme of administrating Wikipedia?
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).
Although it makes sense you blocked both of us, this dispute was started by Colombiaball. They show a superficial "understanding" of the rules, yet they never followed the right channels to discuss my change. My edit on the page did not have any intention or purpose to start a war. Based on that fact, their blocking time should be longer than mine or I should have received a formal warning instead of being blocked. Also, based on the history of both usernames, Colombiaball has been involved in vandalizing or changing information in a non-ethical way based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colombiaball. which probes my point even further. I felt this decision to be arbitrary and Wikipedia should try to revisit these situations.
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.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at arepa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Colombiaball (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
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. Colombiaball (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.