2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1

Ayacucho massacre or whatever

You already left a message in the talkpage, so please wait for other users to discuss and find a consensus about what the best title should be and then it will be changed accordingly, I also suggest you to open a discussion in a more visible venue if the article's talk page will not attract attemntion. What you are not allowed to do is decide yourself what the title or the lede should be. So please keep calm and wait other users' opinion. Happy editing. DoebLoggs (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The consensus can be found in the Spanish version which does not mentioned of a massacre and neither mentioned by any serious international news outlets. This articles should be unbiased and I see people just changing for political motivated reasons. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia projects are independent of each other, so it is assumed that consensus is also found in this wikipedia and will not necessarily be the same as es.wiki or any other. --DoebLoggs (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, there is no international news outlet describing it as massacre. Maybe we can start looking at these sources. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can start from there. So, collect the sources you have confirming your point and post it in the discussion page and then wait other users to express their point too. But please do not change again before a consensus is found, otherwise this will be seen as disruptive behaviour and you risk to see your IP blocked. Happy editing. --DoebLoggs (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it quite funny that you like to mantain an article and desinform the people. Google yourself and you find not serious source saying that this was a massacre. https://www.google.com/search?q=google+massacre+peru&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCH950CH951&oq=google+massacre+peru&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i15i22i30j0i22i30l2j0i15i22i30j0i22i30l3.5797j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I couldn't care less. You wanna keep fake information your problem. I will anyways file a complain about misinformation in the EU as this is not a correct approach of showing the real facts. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you, man. If you follow my suggestions and your sources are convincing, the page will be renamed, otherwise you will just have to accept the consensus that will emerge. --DoebLoggs (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how come fake information can so easily be publish in Wikipedia. Nowhere is told that this was a massacre, and the original author is just trying to manipulate the facts. this doesn't make sense. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello, I'm Vaco98. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ayacucho massacre have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Vaco98 (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, could you please stop making changes in wikipedia? The information here is incorrect and there is no real source to describe it as massacre. So please revert it to protests until it can be clarify by more people. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ayacucho massacre. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you please stop changing the title of this article? There is no use of massacre in the Peruvian media nor well know international news outlets. This is being changed by politically motivated persons, please Stop. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ayacucho massacre, you may be blocked from editing. Anaxial (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this is not vandalism. I am using sources to correct the title, please stop using that exscuse to spread fake information. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Ayacucho massacre 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. Anaxial (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If being blocked is the only way to raise my voice and having the article with right sources, then I will face it. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please note that a discussion about your potentially disruptive behaviour has been open here. DoebLoggs (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.  UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---