User talk:Intedit226

Welcome!

Hello, Intedit226, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Doug Weller talk 07:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 07:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Your recent editing history at Luis Elizondo 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. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 12:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

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).

Intedit226 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Apologies, it was not my intention to engage in an edit war on this page, I'm working to make substantive updates that have been provided to me by a verified source. Please consider unblocking me from this page, and I will go through normal channels to propose edits and provide detailed citations for all of my suggestions to improve the accuracy of this page. Thank you for your consideration. Intedit226 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to Txint445444 and Kpstar233, and that's before we consider the other substantial problems here. Yamla (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

What is your connection with the topic? 331dot (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'll add a second question: Have you had any previous accounts on Wikipedia?

Sure thing, I'm working on behalf of a legal team that is interested in ensuring the accuracy of this page, and will be happy to provide official sources/references for edits that we have suggested. I do have access to another Wikipedia account, txint445444, that I use as well. Please let me know if you have any other questions, happy to provide more info if needed.

What does "working with" mean? Is the legal team working on behalf of Elizondo? And why do you have a second account also editing Elizondo's article? Multiple accounts are allowed, but this use is not. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Doug Weller talk 14:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you meet the definition of a paid editor and must make a formal disclosure, see WP:PAID. Is there active litigation or other legal activity with regards to Mr. Elizodono or the article about him? It's certainly not uncommon for PR/marketing people or agents to edit for clients, but I haven't seen too many-if any- times where lawyers were brought in to do so. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Intedit226: do you also have any association whatsoever with User:BluMoon777? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax, I can assure you that we are not the same person. However, It seems clear that you are policing this page to conform to your personal and negative perception of Mr. Elizondo by leveraging any possible Wikipedia policy you can muster. You have consistently reverted edits that are clearly factual (including my own ) and threatened to ban users if they disagree with your biased views and, on occasion, succeed. You even revert edits that correct the horrible grammar within the article. It is a sad fact that people like yourself discredit Wikipedia. And finally, due to your trolling, you represent a classic example of why Wikipedia articles cannot be used as credible sources in academic articles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use BluMoon777 (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@BluMoon777 ok, do you two know each other and if so what is your relationship? Doug Weller talk 05:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with that person whatsoever. To further clarify, we are not the same person, I do not know who that person is, and I have no connection whatsoever with that person. Regardless of my position on this topic, I also find that user's claim of working with a legal team dubious, at best. BluMoon777 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@BluMoon777 Thanks for the clarification. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in this conversation. Mr. Elizondo is a friend of a friend of mine, and I am assisting Mr. Elizondo in the process of updating his Wikipedia page. We are not aiming to whitewash anything. We would like to correct inaccuracies on the page (for example, Mr. Elizondo was born in Houston, Texas, not Miami, Florida), provide additional information about Mr. Elizondo and his family, and provide additional context to some of the details listed under his early history, career, and criticisms. We would like to propose these changes in the Talk section of his page with sources and references, and work on revising and updating the page from there. Happy to have any kind of constructive conversation around Mr. Elizondo specifically, or the process. Thanks for your willingness to engage. Intedit226 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intedit226: Above you wrote I'm working on behalf of a legal team that is interested in ensuring the accuracy of this page. As pointed out by 331dot that is problematic because it indicates you are an undisclosed paid editor (see WP:COI and WP:PAID). Before suggesting any edits to the page, please fully explain your professional/legal/business/monetary relationship with the article subject. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Striking in response to Doug Weller below. My mistake. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax as this is a blocked editor they should only be using this page to appeal their block, and they seem to be CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)