User talk:Vasalloe1

Welcome!

Hello, Vasalloe1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Doctora Isabel Gomez Bassols- Univision, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! →Σ τ c. 05:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Doctora Isabel Gomez Bassols- Univision

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Doctora Isabel Gomez Bassols- Univision, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Σ τ c. 05:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Doctora Isabel Gomez Bassols- Univision

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.

If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.

The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.

We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Univision Radio

Hi Vasalloe1 :-) You may like to take a look at Univision Radio and add a list of presenters if appropriate.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dr Isabel pics.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dr Isabel pics.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.doctoraisabel.net/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Dr Isabel pics.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dr Isabel pics.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello Vasalloe1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Semir Osmanagić has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

First can I point out that you undoubtedly do not know enough about me to be making the comments you made - you may have read stuff about me by other people that don't like me - I've been lied about quite a bit, sadly. Whether or not I have a degree in a certain subject is irrelevant in any case to my ability to edit in any case. You can't simply remove quotes from someone and say that they no longer proclaim them, you need sources stating that. And you clearly haven't read his latest two books or his PhD - I have. Eg Ancient History from Beyond the Veil: An Akashic Records Experiment Bridges the Gap Between Science and Spirituality. He still holds to these outlandish ideas. As a matter of policy we cannot make a statement that he has discovered pyramids anywhere - as you know, this is heavily disputed, and WP:NPOV requires us to show all significant views, and the mainstream view among archaeologists and geologists is that he hasn't.

I deleted no material at all from Isabel Gomez-Bassols. You shouldn't be accusing me of doing something I didn't do. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he has been misquoted, discuss it at the talk page with evidence. If you are right, then it needs to be changed. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your email. As I said, I didn't delete anything at your mother's article. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for what he actually believes, have you read his Pyramids Around the World?[1] As I wrote on the talk page of his article, In the conclusion of this book he observes that besides being spiritual centres and storing "informatics knowledge", that "Last, maybe the most important and secret fact, is that pyramids were generators of several types of electromagnetic energy with an extremely important influence on the nearby area." He also states that to fully understand " the purpose and function of these structures" will require examine their "physical, energy and spiritual aspects."

While discussing the BP energy beam he says "This is the first proof of non-Hertizan technology on the Planet. It seems that the pyramid-builders created the perpetual mobile a long time ago and this " energy machine" is still working." ( his quotation marks)" You've studied archaeology. Do you think this makes sense? Note that it's a recent publication.

Then there's his stuff on the Akashic Records.[2] and his book.[3] Given all this, where is the evidence he's disclaimed the earlier views you deleted? You'd need a specific statement from him saying that, by the way.

On a completely different topic, do they still have the huge fireworks displays at the Orange Bowl - I remember one with battleships fighting each other. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found his contact info via internet and already contacted him via email after your speedy deletions and am getting these statements from Dr. Osmanagic himself to post. There are a lot more discoveries that have been made in Visoko and studies completed that prove that these structures are man made. They are pyramidal in shape. That is clearly seen in the photo gallery i added that you immediately deleted. The claims i made are from what i have found in several sites on the internet and the fact that you have published several pieces and claim to be an unapologetic "skeptic", I am a firm believer that anyone that calls themselves a skeptic, is on an unbalanced end of the spectrum. Science is in the middle. You being a long time WIki editor and being a skeptic is a huge conflict of interest. You are clearly using your position to filter things that go against what your views are. A speedy deletion of the material i posted claiming copyright as an excuse is non only unethical but incorrect. You could have requested an edit but it seems you are very dedicated in keeping the latest information of latest scientific studies away from the populace to study and review and make their own conclusions. This is what Wikipedia is all about...(at least thats what the site states)...These slanderous comments claiming this man's years of work as a hoax is pretty rigid and non-neutral. People's ideas evolve all the time. Malcolm X is one example that comes to mind. Whatever he believed or was misquoted as saying in the past has nothing to do with current research and scientific findings on the pyramids of bosnia. Regardless, one persons finger can not block out the sun. You will find that out soon enough as more and more data is collected.

regarding my mom's biographical data posted. I received a wiki email saying that it was marked for speedy deletion (i still have that email) maybe you changed your mind after...not sure. I will appeal any and all deletes that i feel are unethical and non-neutral. I will also have many other wiki editors i know in the archaeological community that have data on these pyramids to start posting on these pages to see if you attempt to delete their info as well. Klaus Von Dona recently did Ground penetrating radar on the site and man made geometric chambers have been found and documented. He is getting the documents for me within next few weeks. Addtionally, Christopher Dunn (a licensed engineer) has also visited the site and commented on the obviously man-made tunnel network running underneath these pyramids. The youtube link i posted under references on this statement and visit by Mr. Dunn was speedily deleted by you Mr. Weller. There are also geopolymer analyisis completed by 5 independent laboratories that prove that these polymers are very ancient and man made. The link to that finding was also deleted by you. These polymers were used on the stone terraces that surround the pyramidal structures.

As i have asked in previous emails. Can you explain why you deleted that youtube video link, the youtube link for the archaeological park at Visoko, and current articles regarding recent discoveries at the Bosnian Pyramid site? Those are reference materials for people to review and form their own opinion. can't imagine why you would delete them other than you have a biased opinion that you are using your position as wiki editor to censor. This is unequivocally unethical behavior on your part.

The internet is a funny thing, truth and lies can be aired out but eventually in the end, truth wins out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2014‎

Ok, I gave up. I tried to be friendly and instead you attack me. Speedy deletion is about whole articles, see WP:Speedy deletion, and that hasn't been done here. Believe it or not, being a long time editor is not a conflict of interest, nor is being a skeptic. We have guidelines and policies that I've been following which you obviously don't like. You can't use personal communications or unpublished documents. I strongly suggest you read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE before you continue editing. And I haven't reverted you today, that's been done by other editors, not me. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest notice

Hello, Vasalloe1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Isabel Gomez-Bassols, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone and assumptions of my ability for Dr Isabel Gomez Bassols page

moved here from my talk page:

Hello, Mr DougWeller claimed that i have a language problem. really? I hold a bachelors degree in writing and archaeology (double major) as well as an author of 2 childrens books. I certainly do not have a language problem. What i have issue with is non specific, unsubstantiated issues reported on my page for Dr isabel Gomez Bassols. You have recently claimed that there are no verified links to substantiate the information? Can you give specifics on what I need to verify? I have tried to include links to Univision where she is employed and they have been immediately removed. I will not give up on this. This info is also found on her bio page in her website and in the miami herald article linked in her wikipedia page. Maybe you have not reviewed that information? http://doctoraisabel.net/prensa-eng.php?page=2&
This whole back and forth is unfair and seems to be a little fun game on the side of WikiEditors that have too much time on their hands. Its a simple bio of a person that has been a radio personality on national radio for over 20 years. it isn't that complicated. You and your group of editors seem to get a kick out of wielding your "imagined power" to belittle others. I do not have a language problem, this page seems to have a problem with reining in of egos. The only editor that has been professional and courteous has been Ronz. DougWeller has consistently been condescending and arrogant. Sorry for the non-neutral speak but I am making observations based on communication that you can clearly look for yourself if you like to be fair in your assesment of this situation. if you cannot then please direct me to a supervisor that can. User talk:Vasalloe1

my reply:

Hi! You seem to be under a number of misapprehensions here. Editor Ronz suggested here that you might have some difficulty understanding English (as many editors here do) as a possible explanation of your apparent inability to understand what several people have told you about editing here (conflict of interest, independent reliable sources, copyright violation and so on). Dougweller and I both suggested that you showed no sign of any such difficulty; I'm pleased that you confirm that. If you were to be kind enough to follow those three links (conflict of interest, independent reliable sources, copyright violation) and read the pages they lead to it might help you to understand why your edits to date have attracted criticism.
Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from making edits directly to the article, and are invited instead to make suggestions for improvement on the talk page of the article. What the article on your mother most needs at the moment is an independent reliable source for each and every detail about her that is in the article; anything that is not supported by such a source is likely to be removed very soon. At the moment, that would mean essentially all the content of the article. To take an example: a reliable independent source is needed to justify the inclusion of her date of birth; if no such source can be found, the date of birth will be removed. It makes no difference that you (obviously, as her son) know that date; it will only be included in Wikipedia if someone independent of you and your mother has published it. And so on. This isn't something directed specifically at you, it is how we build this project; articles about living people are treated with particular care in this respect, as it can be hurtful or damaging to someone who has incorrect information published about them.
Lastly, most editors here don't have time on their hands; they have many things they'd like to be doing, such as writing articles, but dedicate some of their time to helping sort out problems such as conflict-of-interest editing. And there aren't any supervisors; there are some editors with additional administrative permissions, some of whom, like Dougweller, are administrators. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks very much for your comments Justlettersandnumbers. I am getting a bit tired of being accused of doing things I haven't done. Eric, why are you saying I deleted or said things I didn't? By the way, please stop creating Talk:Doctora Isabel Gomez Bassols- Univision. That article has been deleted - not by me but by User:RHaworth and won't be recreated there is already another article about your mother. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Semir Osmanagić could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, this is specifically relating to your edit summary at Semir Osmanagić where you accused editors of making libellous claims. You must not use this sort of language again. You are new so no one is going to block you for this one instance, but we take such suggestions of legal action seriously. You also need to read WP:AGF and stop being so confrontational.

my reply: to Dougweller Good afternon Mr. Doug Weller, i never "accused" i simply stated that both the wiki pages for Semir Osmanagic and Bosnian Pyramid theories are both non-neutral and biased towards labeling and oversimplifying the whole topic as a hoax in their edits. I stated in the most neutral way a factual statement that they are libelous because after looking up the term on your WIkipedia code of conduct pages it specifically states the following- (copied and pasted from Wiki page)- The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1] It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.""

Both these pages are absolutely not neutral and they are not adhering to the above policy. I added information and presented both sides of the debate clearly and succintly with references to actual recent studies. There are no peer-reviewed studies yet as no archaeologist in the establishment would submit a paper to an org if the whole subject is slandered as a hoax on wikipedia. That is the nature of the business unfortunately. I am an archaeologist that believes that we know nothing until proper research has been completed and in the case of Bosnian pyramids, the dig or research is not complete but all indicators thus far is that it is a very ancient, man made or man altered structure.

My statement is this exactly- "removed libelous claims that were non-neutral -updated with current research, findings and theories."

I have read that the goal of wiki is to have pages constantly edited to make sure they are most correct. all the info on both referenced pages Dr. Osamanagic and Bosnia Pyramids are neither neutral. They do not express both sides of the debate objectively, nor do they reflect "recent and current" scientific findings at the archaeological site where digs are ongoing. I am simply trying to edit these pages to reflect this. Is that possible to do at all or will the information be deleted each time the page is updated? Let me know so I can advise others on the official position of Wikipedia on these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs)

No, your appreciation of the situation is wrong. The neutral presentation of the pyramid hoax is that it is proven to be a fabrication. The only reason you think this is non-neutral is that you do not like this answer. Everybody else can see that the scientific consensus concludes a hoax. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, your appreciation of this situation is outdated -the statement by European archaeological org was many years ago and the site work is ongoing and partially funded by the Bosnian government. Are you assuming that the Bosnian government is in some way colluding to support a hoax with millions of dollars contributing to this "hoax"? It is an ongoing debate as are many ongoing debates regarding archaeology. If you were an archaeologist you would understand the nature of the science or any science for that matter. There are theories presented with recent data applied and those theories that are proven today can be disproven as new research or discoveries are made. "Dark energy" of our universe is one that quickly comes to mind. For archaeology, one example would be- Schliemann discovering Troy when previously it was labeled as a mythical place. until he discovered artifacts proving it did in fact exist. WIkipedia should be allowing for these pages that are currently being debated to have both sides of the debate in a balanced manner. After all that is what i have read in your policy pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs)

The Bosnian government has every reason to increase tourism. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wow that's a huge assumption coming from a wikieditor that is supposed to be maintaining neutrality. Can i quote you on that for an archaeological article i am writing on alternate history for Popular Archaeology site?

I would counter that the Bosnian govt doesnt have much money at all to be funding something that is a hoax, unless of course there is something there. Look up Gobekli Tepe. Scientists didn't want to believe there were any ancient people civilized enough to build from that time period of about 12k BCE either and yet, gobekli tepe is changing history as we speak. By the way Gobekli was discovered after the Bosnian pyramids. I think if you are going to take any position you should do some thorough research beforehand. Obviously you nor Mr. Weller have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs)

I hope you understand that there is no support for your promotional edits at the Semir Osmanagić biography and at the Osmanagić pyramids article. If you continue to insert such promotion you will likely get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no affiliation to Semir but i am an archaeologist and find what you as an editor are doing with these pages. You are not allowing for both sides of the debate to be aired. this is "non-neutral". I am absolutely not promoting. what i am trying to do is present current archaeological and scientific evidence which is obviously falling on deaf ears. you don't need to threaten me with your unethical deletions. I am fully aware of the game. you will be proven mistaken as many others of your ilk have been throughout history. Enjoy trying to cover the sun with your finger. I will be quoting you and Mr. Weller on your non-neutrality for my article.

by the way i hope you are aware that universities do not accept wikipedia articles as factual or to be used for research. just so you were aware.

best regards, eric

Okay, cool. I am always interested to see my name in print. Here's how to spell it correctly. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasalloe, having studied archaeology does not make you an archeologist. You don't work as an archeologist. And you do not have permission to quote me. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis 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. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you have had your edits revert by 4 editors so far. 3RR is not an entitlement, and continuing to edit in the same vein can get you blocked even if you don't revert 3 or more times. I'm sure you don't want that. So what you need to do is to get agreement on the talk page of any article you want changed. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Isabel Gómez-Bassols for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isabel Gómez-Bassols is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Gómez-Bassols until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vasalloe1 my reply-

Hi User:DGG - at this point I give up. Apparently Wikipedia editors interpret wikipedia's, code of conduct however they see fit into their world view. Dra. Isabel's page has been up for over two years without issue and all of a sudden, dougweller, has enlisted fellow Wikipedia editors to his cause because he chooses not to believe in the current research done at the Bosnia pyramids site and is sticking with a document released over 8 years ago, calling it a hoax. So if it makes dougweller and other editors here feel more relevant or important, go ahead and delete her page, it is totally irrelevant to her career. Even though all the information is found within the articles, her imdb page, univision website and her public website, yet oddly enough after 2 plus years this page is being marked to go to an inane wikicourt of sorts. This whole theater is a waste of mine and dr. Isabel's time. Her reply to all of this is a lot less courteous than mine and had something to do with a cliff. She is an icon of the Hispanic community, a best selling author, motivational speaker, has interviewed president Obama and his wife twice, been invited to the white house numerous times, given national awards all over the country and been on the air for over 20 years and yet your bunch of self important douche canoes feel the need for this absurd theater. You can go ahead and do it on your time. Do whatever the hell you want with your threats. They mean nothing in the real world. I really could care less. And as far as the Bosnia pyramids site. "Official, peer reviewed documentation" will be submitted by several wiki editors in the near future so get your little geeky fingers ready to try to delete the truth yet again. When you have time, Google Doug Weller and you decide for yourself if that is not a conflict of interest to have someone with such poor ethics and credentials to be editing anything more than a crossword puzzle. Now I must go, because some of us have real jobs to do. Thanks for screwing up what used to be a good source of information for the masses. Oh and by the way your user interface is more antiquated than old DOS programming. It's horribly un-userfriendly but I'm sure you editors prefer it that way. That way you keep people from editing any of your bias out. Cheers. ---reply from vasalloe1---