Uniru288

Welcome!

Hi Uniru288! I noticed your contributions to Democratic Party (United States) and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Dronebogus (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

ProveIt

I'd like to suggest the use of ProveIt for your references, as it makes the citation process easier. Adding bare citations is alright, as it's better than nothing, but full citations using the template are greatly preferred over bare URLs. Hope this helps. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Juntos por el Cambio

what is your problem? Honestly I'm telling you because I don't understand. the only reason you have is that you are simply dissatisfied with the right-wing position, which has been endorsed by multiple sources. There is no reason to remove it. If you want to discuss it with me on the talk page, I have no problem. 181.170.173.232 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Juntos por el Cambio. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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:Uniru288 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: ). Thank you. Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Javier Milei. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Javier Milei. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion invitation: Javier Milei

Hello, Uniru288. You have new messages at Talk:Javier_Milei#New_structure_for_article.
Message added 12:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~~~ Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Renewal Front

Please do not continue to remove appropriately sourced content. They have already been checked to ensure they match the claims being made, and sources for centre-right greatly outnumber those for centre-left. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Your recent editing history at Renewal Front 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. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Renewal Front. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. None of the sources you added appears to refer to the Renewal Front as centre-left as you claim. They describe it as being a part of a centre-left coalition (which is already labeled as such on the coalition's article), not that the party itself is. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 17:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Reuters: “In 2013, Massa founded a new party called the Renewal Front, which eventually joined forces with other Peronist factions to create a center-left group”. Uniru288 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right. it is a center left group https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewal_Front&oldid=1183577672 its should be put back as such. MMQ735 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/23/argentina-peronist-candidate-sergio-massa-holds-back-the-far-right-wave_6196778_4.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/sergio-massas-win-surprises-argentina-sets-runoff-javier-milei-rcna121705 https://time.com/6327146/argentina-presidential-election-sergio-massa-javier-milei/ https://time.com/6327146/argentina-presidential-election-sergio-massa-javier-milei/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/argentina-election-1.7004856 MMQ735 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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:Uniru288 reported by User:HapHaxion (Result: ). Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 17:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for two weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Javier Milei 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. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Javier Milei.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I want to appeal this block. It seems unfair to me because of the following:

I have only reverted vandalistic and arbitrary edits from user 'Pedantic Aristotle'. This user has dedicated himself to deleting information with sources, in a massive, extremely arbitrary and unjustified way, in the articles by Javier Milei and La Libertad Avanza. This user had already been blocked once for this and other users also warned him on their talk page about his chaotic edits. According to Wikipedia rules, removing referenced information is vandalism, and 'Pedantic Aristotle' has done it countless times, so in fact he is the one who should be blocked indefinitely. Furthermore, Wikipedia rules state that reverting edits that are clearly vandalistic and arbitrary is not vandalism.

Below I show some examples of how the user 'Pedantic Aristotle' has massively, extremely, repeatedly and arbitrarily deleted information with sources:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] Uniru288 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)