Joserchm

Welcome!

Hello, Joserchm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to History of Cuba does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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!  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Joserchm, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Joserchm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from World War II by country into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:46, 13 March 2020 (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.

Hello, Joserchm . A report was made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joserchm reported by User:Wiki-Ed (Result: Warned) and I asa an uninvolved Admin have concluded that you did engage in edit warring, although not o9verm the WP:3RR line. Please consider this a warning not to engage in such multiple reverts without discussion again. Please see the full notice in the noticeboard section linked above. Please follow thew bold, revert, discuss cycle in future in such cases, and discuss rather than engaging in multiple reverts.Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW Infobox stats

Hey Joserchm, thanks for your contributions at the American Revolutionary War page.

FYI, the "total numbers" for the ARW Infobox casualties were posted by a previous contributor who used BRITISH and other totals among FOUR belligerents in THREE wars, 1775-1784:

The four belligerents in three wars include: (1) the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 (GB v US & FR); (2),(3) the Anglo-French War (GB v FR & SP) 1778-1783, and (4) the Anglo-Dutch War 1780-1784 (GB v DR), encompassing the years of BRITISH Treasury expenditures for their army and navy 1775-1784.

That is, the Infobox totals for the Euros are IN ADDITION TO those casualties associated with the ARW conflict (North America and North Atlantic), for or against US independence 1775-1783 (formally ended at the 1783 Peace of Paris between the British and the US as the only two signatories).

Editors can MISread the RS who write, but [precisely mean] the following: [For the BRITISH], colonial war in America [1775-1783] SPREAD [to wars with Britain] worldwide [when FRANCE initiated war on the British 1778, and SPAIN initiated war on the British 1779, and Britain initiated war on the DUTCH REPUBLIC 1780].

Unfortunately, the simple statement MISLEADS -- "colonial war in America spread worldwide" -- because it implies the ILLOGICAL idea that an abstraction of historiography "colonial war in America" had concrete agency to spread by itself, when in fact, ONLY the armies and navies among the warring NATIONS could have AGENCY in historical events. The term of logic that applies is the "reification" of a concept, one of the "historians' fallacies" that is easily to fall into, and one that editors here at ARW Wikipedia must guard against.

I hope this helps. Welcome to the fray. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your recent editing history at British Empire 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31` hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at British Empire. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You were warned about edit warring previously on this same article, reported to the edit-warring notice board, formally warned by me when closing the notice board report and asked to discuss the issues on the article talk page. then you resumed edit-warring, were warned yet again by Snowded just above, and multiple editors attempted to engage with you in edit summaries and on the article talk page,. You continued to revert. This is not acceptable. PleaseSTOP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your recent editing history 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.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2020 (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. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, still. Please start communicating or your next block will almost certainly be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 12:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing (more of the same).

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)