You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tempura. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the same unsourced information was contentiously added to the article five times in a period of just over 24 hours,[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] which involved a 3RR violation. Accusing the party who removed the material of acting for reasons of nationalism[6] does not seem to be assuming good faith on the part of other editors.Wikidemo (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Filipe. Please, read the talk page in tempura. Hopfully we can find an agreement. I respect your "portuguese theory", but I say that there are at least another theory, the "spanish" one. I´ve added sources that have being deleted, dont know why. I don´t think we sould make a nationalistic issue here. If the origin was portuguese, good. If spanish. good too. If japanese or mixed, great. But since we are talking about only theories, no evidences, I think we can´t ignore the theories that we just don´t like. I hope you agree, and if that´s the case, I´m more than happy if you want to add the "spanish theory" at your way. Portugués o español, la tempura esta buenísima, y de todas formas, para comernos unos deliciosos peixinhos o estupendos rebozados, no tenemos que irnos tan lejos, los tenemos bien cerca. Perdona que no pueda falar portugués, muito obrigado.--Pinaster (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The theory is not mine. I was not the one who added it to the article.
• The reason why I removed your contributions from the article was plain and simple, and not at all nationalistic: they were unsourced. In Wikipedia, any doubtful claim can be removed from any article if it's not properly sourced. FilipeS (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course is not yours, such a pity, smart boy. Why all this genius are so full of themselves in Wikipedia and cant stand a rational discussion? gosss! I tryed my best.Filipe, if you can´t stand what you say (your theory or not) what are you usefull for?

The Andalusian horse is separate from the Iberian horse and the various Andalusian horse breeder associations would take issue with your statements. As such, your move of the Andalusian article constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV, also is unsourced and is Original research and has been reverted. Please do not move it again. If you feel strongly about the issue, you are certainly welcome to start a separate article called "Spanish horse" and we can see what happens from there. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir: The Asociación Nacional de Criadores de Caballos de Pura Raza Española, The National Association of Purebred Spanish Horse Breeders of Spain is the international parent association founded for Purebred Spanish Horses.

Constituted in 1972, ANCCE currently accounts for more than 700 breeders world-wide and 22 associations such as those of the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Italy, Mexico, Holland, Czech Republic and Sweden. ANCCE is the representative of the Purebred Spanish Horse in the COPA-COGEGA( Committee of professional Agricultural organization) and the WBFSH (World Breeders Federation of Sports Horses) and it designs annual promotional plans with the Spanish Institute of Foreign commerce (ICEX) and EXTENDA (Andalusian Promotional Agency). (http://www.ancce.es/index.php#1). Apart from this, there is not any official "andalusian Horse Breeder" asociation. The Spanish horse has a very rigorous standart, and the breeding of spanish horse has being developed since inmemorial time. The ANCCE literally says"1-. Name: Purebres spanish Horse. It is also known by its initials (P.R.E.). Other names such as Andalusian or Iberian horse do not represent this horse. These should generally be regarded along with the cross-breds that lack the quality controls and purity, as well as of the official documentation of the Spanish Stud Book." Wen I moved the page, I clearly explained the reason, quoting the ANCCE statement. I don´t understand at all your "also is unsourced". I´m affraid you haven´t had the chance to read my comment. Yes in deed, my statement is perfectly sourced. On the opposite, THERE IS NOT ANY SOURCE standing the "andalusian horse" name. I find astonishing that you consider my statements "unsourced". Specially when there isn´t any oficial source supporting the "andalusian" name. "The various Andalusian horse breeder associations would take issue with your statements." Well, that will be the case if any "andalusian horse breeder" would exist, breeding the hypothetical "andalusian horse" that legally and officially doesn´t exist, so far. You appeal to the NPOV, and once again, I fill amazed; "articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." I´ve read it several times, and the more I read, the most I desagree with your point of view. I´ve argumented my statesments with "reliable sources" from the very begining. On the other side, I can´t find any source -"reliable" or not- standing the "andalusian horse" name. So, I don´t know who you are, and I find your comment intimidating and threatning, and opposite to Wikipedia policies. Under this circumstances, I do have the right to move this article, and I don´t think you have the right to threat me with an hypothetycall NPOV or NOR warning. Please, read again the article, and if you think that theres another source better than the one I quoted, it will worth a good discussion page. Until then, I will move the page again, because I honestly think is the right think to do, is justifyed, and necessaire for the good of Wikipedia. And Please, do not try to intimadete me. Kind regards.

Please do not move or revert the page until there is further discussion at the talk page for the article, so we don't have to clutter up each other's talk page. Here is one of my sources: http://www.ialha.org/new/about_breed/andalusianname.php The others have been posted on the Andalusian horse article. It appears there is a significant political spat over "Andalusian" versus "PRE" horses, and I suggest that rather than moving the Andalusian page, you start your own article on the Pure Spanish Horse, as there appear to be some irreconcilable differences of opinion here. I am relying on the American association, IALHA, and their further explanation at http://www.ialha.org/new/about_breed/pura_raza_espanola.php Hence, there clearly IS an "Andalusian" horse, which may not be precisely the same thing as a "PRE" horse. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys centralize this discussion somewhere okay? If there are associations in both America and Spain they both need to be dealt with. In this case, two separate articles may be best. Disputed page moves should not be done until agreement is reached. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for revert warring. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Dreadstar † 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I don´t see any revert warring. I´ve just moved one page once, thats all. Wheres the edit warring?}}

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Assuming good faith in view of further review of Pinaster's edit history. Request handled by: Dreadstar † 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the blocking admin to comment. - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User revert warred on Tempura, then moved Andalusian horse without consensus. After Andalusian horse was moved back, user then threatened to continue reverting the page move, accusing the disputing editor of "intimidation" in a harassing message on the user's talk page. Dreadstar † 03:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss the memo that new users are required to adhere to 0RR? WP:BITE? --B (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block really seems unjustified. We do not preemptively block editors because they may edit war. The Tempura edits were made more than two days before this block, and the move of the horse page may have been ill-advised, but was not edit-warring. - auburnpilot talk 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Tempura issue was resolved through talk page discussion. Reading the brief exchange, it appears to have been caused by a misunderstanding that ended amicably. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user has shown a desire to revert war and has threatened to continue warring, as well as leaving harassing messages. Taking all these issues into consideration, I think a short block is warranted. I feel comfortable shortening the block if the user understands that he must abide by Wikipedia policy, no revert warring and no threatening messages. Dreadstar † 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there threatening messages other than the one you linked above? That's hardly a threat and there's no evidence of an attempt to simply explain to the user that the move was inappropriate and/or that repeating it would be inappropriate. This is a new user - we try to resolve problems before hitting the block button. --B (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full agreement with B (talk · contribs) on this situation. The block simply isn't justifiable. There were no warnings, no actual edit warring, and no attempt to educate this user. - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree that the block was unjustifiable, and I see that warnings were given to the user for edit warring, I'll be happy to respect my fellow admin's opinions on this issue and unblock. Dreadstar † 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dreadstar. I believe that is the correct course of action. - auburnpilot talk 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AuburnPilot, I don´t know what to say. I supposse that after all, wikipedia works fine sometimes. And for my blocker: I prommisse to be a good boy, I swear, I wont touch the Andalusian horse article. I´m nearly thinking of force myself not to spell "spanish horse" anymore. Please, if you catch me editing that article, ban me for ever. I´m serious. I will not touch it, no kidding. No sarcasm, no irony. I will not touch it. Please, excuse me for "threatning" another user to revert my edition, I just thought it was my right. Obviously I´ve still got a lot to learn to be a good citizen and respect administrators. You were right, I didn´t do anything, but I was in the verge of commiting something horrible. Thankyou, as far I´m concernt, that article can remain the same way for ever and ever. I just hope Montana will some day forgive me for my "harassing" comments. And Auburn, thanks. I mean it, sincerely. Will you regreat helping me after this comment? Maybe I sould take a good rest. Sorry.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted. Request handled by: B (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]