User talk:Hehex2020

August 2020

Please do not continue to insert WP:FRINGE material into articles, similarly do not remove cited content. I suggest you also read WP:BRD and if your command of the English language is as bad as you intimated, consider whether you have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. WCM_email 15:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t put bad information: if you don’t know how much armed forces have Argentina that’s no my problem, if you don’t read comandos en acción that’s no my problem, if you like bad intentional information that’s no my problem. To talk about Argentina you need information, and you don’t have it Hehex2020 (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable. Information published by a government is not always reliable. Unless you can understand and use sources correctly I too question your competence to edit here, whether or not your English is good enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If for you the Argentine government’s sources are not reliable and the aggregate in all my edits of a "according to" is not enough you have a important problem because you are speaking about Argentina without any information about Argentina and with your British government’s sources that’s,according to your opinion, "aren’t be always reliable". Hehex2020 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, welcome to an exclusive club, the people who are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. Please respect this. I have a feeling this will end in tears and your wiki career will be short and painful. WCM_email 14:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not that stupid to want to have a "wiki career", I just wanted to put another view of the facts. If your sole mission on Wikipedia is to put up British propaganda or something, you have a problem, not me. Hehex2020 (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Armed Forces of the Argentine Republic 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. You are removing cited content based on your own flawed understanding of the article content. I toyed with a vandalism warning since you have persisted despite trying to engage with you in talk. Consider this a warning, the next stage will be a report. WCM_email 16:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In the only article where I delete an edit was in the Argentines armed forces article, in the rest of articles you are deleting my edits. I was talking to you to explain my position but you never send to me arguments, i am yet waiting for it Hehex2020 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hexex2020, back to my above post, your addition (about HMS Invincible) was not notable enough to justify inclusion. It is just someone's thoughts that has no relevance to anything, except possibly to the orchestrated campaign of misleading, non-balanced and false information that has made its way into the minds of most Argentinians. I agree that there is a lot of information in these wiki articles about the dispute that gives a pro-UK slant and should be changed to make it more neutral and sometimes with better sources. However, most of that is not false information. In the case of the Invincible, she was not damaged and to state or imply otherwise is nonsense. It is a shame that you are not more objective and more experienced in how to use wikipedia because it is welcoming to have someone from the Argentinian side who can communicate in English. Unfortunately, it looks as though you will soon get yourself blocked. (Bye the way, the British government is not "my government") Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

For you the HMS Invencible was no damaged because the Argentinians have ours arguments to sustain that. But my intention was not to put that the HMS Invencibles was damaged and there’s no any other opinion, my intention was to put an “according to the Argentinian government the ship was damage” and maintain the part of the British side. Hehex2020 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

If your comments belong anywhere, they below in an article about Argentine fake news or the Argentine mindset about the Falklands, not here. We do not put in every opinion there is about a topic. The opinion must be relevant, which this opinion is not...because Invincible was not damaged. Why don't you look for other areas to improve these Falklands articles: there is plenty to do and having a balanced Argentine editor would be useful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And who are you to tell me that I am saying fake news? Are you a war veteran? Because all the thing I am saying are the testimony of war veterans who took part in the facts and these testimonies were studied by the Armed forces and the government. Why we only can use British sources? Why? Are they perfect? Perhaps they don’t have interests? Hehex2020 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy your remaining time on wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? Do you reported me because I don’t concur with your ideas? Hehex2020 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Armed Forces of the Argentine Republic 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.

Not impressed, this is a really stupid thing to edit war over. People have accommodated your concerns and have pointed out the text amplifies the information in the infobox. Not every detail has to be there. Really your ego is getting the better of you. WCM_email 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My ego? The problem is what you can’t accept that in Argentina we can have other vision of the fact, what, in some cases is more accurate than the English, and this is the problem in the Operation Sutton article, in Exocet article and in the 602 commando company article. In the article of the armed forces the problem is that you can’t accept put a little observation. I am not have problems with you, but is obvious that you have problems with me and maybe with Argentina. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Sutton. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. WCM_email 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ----Darius (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)