User talk:ElPikacupacabra

The last section doesn't violate policy.

The last section doesn't violate policy. The facts stated are uncontroversial, not of tabloid interest, and relevant to the field. While we can disagree on the finer points of wiki policy, it's bad to remove sections you don't like.

This is not about removing sections but preventing sections either not backed by cited sources or using unreliable sources from being *added*. As such content should never be part of living person biography. I will create a 3O request for this disagreement (done). Tunkki-1970 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Your recent editing history at Anima Anandkumar 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. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already exceeded 3 reverts in one day. When content is contested, the WP:ONUS is on the editor trying to add the contested content to gain consensus on the Talk page. Please engage in the discussion and reach consensus with other editors before adding it again. Schazjmd (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions awareness

Please read WP:BLP.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 31 January 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:ElPikacupacabra reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: ). Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]