User talk:TheEconomissst

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.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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.

This warning above wasn't an editor that put, but my dear cowboy Nixie9, that's picking on me and that is annoying the administrators with absurds.

Regards,

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Herrera

Hi - I'm concerned about your recent edits. You have added a several tenuous royalty connections which has now expanded to the absurd. First repeatedly mentioning the titles she and her husband have not acknowledged in 50 years, and more recently in the lede, you removed Michelle Obama, and inserted an obscure Portugese Dutchess, with 7 unrelated links!. Now you have added links to the (second) husbands of two of Herrera's clients, Aristotle Onassis and Prince Philippe of Orleans! It seems that you have a WP:POV that is beyond the scope of this article, supported by the fact that this is the only article you care to edit. I have no choice but to undo this pointless distraction. Regarding Michelle Obama, the entire point was to illustrate a continuity - two generations of first ladies, and a good lede is short enough for a search engine summary.--Nixie9 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make a major change to an article, especially the lead, please add a citation. You again removed a citation to Forbes Magazine listing the first lady a as a client, to put in the Duchess of Portugal that no-one in the US ever heard of, and has no reference.-Nixie9 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CITE to learn how to actually reference content that you add to an article. Thanks.-Nixie9 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

advice

I have reverted to Nixie's edits. Herra is known as a fashion designer. Any importance from being the wife of a Portuguese nobleman is so irrelevant that he would not even be notable enough for an article, since at present Portugal is a republic, and descendants of the former Portuguese nobility have no official title, beyond what they choose to take for themselves (or, more exactly, whatever their colleagues among the former nobility accept, which according to the article on the subject has no present official standing. This is standard WP practice.

She is famous, so whom she marries is worth mentioning, but not worth emphasizing. The title she has become unofficially entitled to can and should be mentioned. but it should be mentioned prominently only if she actually uses it.

WP articles are written with proportional coverage of a person's areas of importance; her's is 80& as designer, 18% as businesswoman, and 2% her spouse. If further discussion is needed, it should not be done like this on user talk pages, and it should not be done by edit summaries, but on the article talk page./ DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stronger advice. The material you are adding is not,as your edit summary keeps saying, a matter of uk/us. Its a matter of encyclopedic vs tabloid, which is a basic WP policy. I need to warn you in no uncertain terms that that you are approaching the sort of behavior that we call edit warring. This a a BLP, and although the material you are adding is not negative, it is not appropriate. A formal warning follows. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Carolina Herrera

Hello TheEconomissst. See WP:AN3#User:TheEconomissst reported by User:Nixie9 (Result: ). You have been edit warring on this article, and an administrator may choose to block you. To avoid sanctions, consider promising to take a break of at least seven days from this article. Please give your response at the noticeboard, and there is a chance that the closing admin might take that into account. You've accumulated a surprising number of warnings and so far there is no sign that you are taking any notice of them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Carolina Herrera (fashion designer). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility Notability

Dear TheEconomissst - Although you have been blocked for being disruptive, I am hopeful that you will not be discouraged from participating in Wikipedia. Clearly you have a lot of knowledge and interest to contribute regarding European nobility, which could be useful for many articles. Nobody has said that this information is not valid or important. It is all a matter of notability, references, and importance for the particular article. For Herrera, her inherited but unused title is new and worth mentioning (if we can find a strong actual reference), but it should not dominate the article, nor be included in the lede (in my opinion, others may disagree, and I am open to that). The issue was that you insisted on your perspective, despite the several others that disagreed with you. With a more balanced approach, seeking consensus, I am sure that you will be able to add value to many articles. Based on your expert inclusion of Wikipedia articles in your editing and Talk, I am also sure that you are not a brand new user to Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest that you invest in your Username, and develop a reputation for valuable contributions, rather than abandoning this Username and starting again. I take no satisfaction from your administrative blocking, and would enjoy collaborating with you in the near future.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Found - She is not the Marquise consort of Torre Casa. The Ministry of Spain retracted Reinaldo's title in 1992. "Gobierno De Espana, Agencia Estatal Boletin Oficial del Estado - Order 26340, March 16, 1992"--Nixie9 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Herrera (fashion designer)

Hello TheEconimissst - Welcome back, I'm happy to see that you are still interested in contributing. Regarding your recent edits, I would like to discuss them rather than simply reverting them. Some are valuable and appreciated, however I have to tell you that many of them are still quite inappropriate and disruptive, and reflect your unique point of view that has been repeatedly cited as excessive by several editors and administrators.

Leads are expected to be short and highlighting the most important aspects of the article. You have added three people who are unnecessary in conveying the point that Carolina Herrera has dressed important people, over a long period of time. There are literally hundreds of celebrities we could cite, but do not add value to the article, and certainly not the lead. I would be supportive of one Noblilty reference if you can show that there are others, otherwise it is WP:ONEEVENT. As you know, I have cited to you every first lady since the Kennedy era, but mentioned only 2 in the entire article.
Her former title, which she never used explicitly, should not be mentioned in the lead. It is already well covered in the body. As the official reference shows, although Reinaldo's father died in 1962, before the marriage, the title did not officially transfer until Order 3742 in 1975. Even if he did have the title unofficially, and maybe it transfers instantly upon the father's death, his temporary title does not belong in the lead paragraph for his wife - this conveys too much emphasis.
The lengthier details of her husband's father's 16th century ancestors are not relevant in her article, nor the Venezuelan history lesson as a colony. There is already a link to Caracas and Venezuela, which interested readers can follow.

Perhaps only mention "Marquess of Torre Casa (1973-1992), of the Spanish nobility." Because repeating: "whose family, besides being one of the most traditionals of Venezuela - as they arrived in the 16th century, at the very start of the Venezuelan Colonial Period (1522-1821), as Venezuela was founded as a colony of the Spanish Empire -, belongs to the Spanish nobility." is excessive.

Your Pucci links are excellent, as well as the Ulsar spelling correction
I suppose mentioning the client's husband is ok, being the Prince Philipe. As it stands, I feel the Duchess should only be mentioned in the body of the article. If you do want to use her in the lead, the "Portugese noblewoman" intro does not add value, and she would be better positioned after the first ladies, being more recent and in order to not deemphasize the designer's longevity point. Now, the lengthy version of her name does not add value. Interested readers can follow her link. We are focused on Carolina Herrera here. BTW - Jacqueline Onassis' full name is much longer too..."Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" Bouvier Kennedy Onassis"
Here and in Pucci, I believe it is unnecessary to say "Don" when you are also listing their title after the name. Similarly, we don't always put "Mr." XYZ when we mention other people.

If you do not have an objection (which you can substantiate with Wikipedia standards or policies) to items 1 to 3 above, I respectfully ask that you reverse those particular changes. As you will notice, in the last few days, several editors including myself have strived to substantially improve this article. We would like to count you among that team.

Best regards--Nixie9✉ 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add my administrative perspective here. Economissst, if you don't respond to Nixie9's comments constructively, you may be blocked for continued disruptive editing - and for a much longer period of time than the last block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheEconomissst - Given that it has been nearly 24 hours since the above corrections have been suggested, I have gone ahead and implemented them myself. I can't help but notice that when it comes to reverting my work so many times, you waste no time. Given the admin attention, I suspect that another reversion from you may not go over very well.--Nixie9✉ 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Carolina Herrera (fashion designer)

The admins who watch for edit warring are alert to see if people previously sanctioned return to their old articles. If you continue to revert at this article without paying any attention to what others have been saying, you may be blocked for a longer time. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You've continued to revert this article after many warnings, and after you'd already been blocked for this specific article. Your block may be lifted if you will respond on your user talk page and agree to wait for a talk page consensus before making any more edits regarding European royal titles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]