User talk:Ibanez100

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ibanez100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Irn (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Garcia (California politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edits

my edits to damon dunn and robert garcia are not vandalism, they are attempts to make wikipedia entries neutral and objective, instead of political attack laucnhpads. As someone living in long beach and closely observing political events, I can tell you with certainty that the supposed "controversies" on the garcia page are 100% manufactured by the dunn campaign. They were utterly false claims made by dunn that have been investigated and disproven, and they have no place in a biographical article. They got brief news coverage but were found to be baseless. To keep them there is to reward the dunn campaign's slanderous remarks and enshrine manufactured accusations in an encyclopedia.

The edits I have made to dunn's page are accurate and reflect reality. They have been proven true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.171 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are based on "verifiability, not truth" (WP:VNT): to quote, "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true." It seems that you do not personally believe the articles that several mainstream Long Beach-area newspapers published regarding the Robert Garcia campaign sign controversy and city prosecutor's voting investigation, but as they were previously published in several reliable sources, they are verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Likewise, you may believe that the statements you repeatedly added to the Damon Dunn article are true, but without citations from reliable sources, they are not verifiable and therefore have no place in a Wikipedia article - in fact, as I have stated before, unsourced and contentious material about living persons is in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies (WP:BLP) and must be removed immediately. Ibanez100 (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Robert Garcia (California politician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]