![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi, I just came across this [1] edit of yours by chance and I'm a bit confused. What's the logic behind de-tagging that? If it's a Reuters picture it's a copyvio no matter what the tags say, it's got to go as fast as possible. Am I missing something? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The links of the sources are dead. And these numbers in the article are confliting with the UN data. Please see the talk page for further informations. Thank's.-- Italodal ( talk) 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. JulieSpaulding ( talk) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi TownDown! I just thought I'd drop by and let you know why I got involved in the HDI article dispute. As you probably know, Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, meaning that if you get rid of someone else's edits more than three times in twenty-four hours, you may be blocked. I've seen some of your edits, and they are very good! Although you haven't broken the 3RR yet, it's getting close to that, and I just wanted to make sure you weren't blocked - Wikipedia needs fine editors such as yourself! Anyway, give me a shout if you need anything. JulieSpaulding ( talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your request at Ssoldbergj's talk page, and decided to take it on myself. What do you think?
.
Connormah (
talk)
22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted because there has been no discussion about changing the map. Also, to be completely honest, the current map being used is more detailed. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm very happy to find another commited Mexican in this vast community. You don't know how happy I am. You should be aware that there are several topics in which a certain user is always trying to push a POV that Mexico is not part of North America but Central America, and if this criteria is not followed, he then says Mexico is part of "Middle America". Then may be you can give us a hand. Gracias. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Town, please do not revert the usage section in the North America article. I'm sure you feel it is wrong but again, this has been long discussed before. See, there are two main texts:
We are fighting to prove that the second option is the most correct. Your changes are reverting the page to the previous status, in which North America = US + Canada. Walterego is an American that also believes that North America includes Mexico. The "bad guy" here is Corticopia, which is now using an anonymous IP (check North America history page) Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you mass-moved a bunch of articles, however, they don't appear to be because of vandalism. Please help me to understand your actions. -- slakr\ talk / 02:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad move reverts Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! Now that you're helping us with all the Mexico-related articles, there's something you should know. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/American(Can)] The newest Corticopia account (the anti-Mexican disrupter). It was just a matter of time after Administrator blocked several pages in which he edit-warred anonymously. So, be notified. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but there is no reason to pass out warnings if you are unwilling to recieve them from others. You have some useful information, but your wording needs to be changed. If you'll look at any other article in Wikipedia, you'll notice it is not in the style you are writing in. Also, you do not need to erase everything that is always there. It is better to add than subtract. Please work WITH others and Stop edit warring. C.Kent87 ( talk) 00:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. TownDown ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I reverted according Non-free content criteria, in the article there wasn't any reference and violated Neutral point of view, also the user C.Kent87 reverted this article more than 3 times in 24 hrs and it's not blocked, and I didn't use any personal attack but the user Seicer did it to me.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for edit warring. Whether you were 'right' or 'wrong' on a particular content position is immaterial. Unless what you were reverting blatantly violated our biographies of living persons policy or was blatant vandalism, there is no exemption to the three revert rule. Protonk ( talk) 07:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
TownDown ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did it because Wikipedia:BLP#Writing style and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources.-- TownDown How's going? 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
BLP stands for biography of living people, and since the Second Mexican Empire ended 142 years ago, none of the individuals from that era are still, you know, living. Regardless of NFCC, BLP, or any other raison du jour, you were warned about edit warring and chose to disregard that warning. Are you aware three declined unblock requests your talk page is locked for the duration of your block ... ? — Kralizec! ( talk) 09:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Where are the personal attacks mentioned in the original block notice? Lara 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello:
Just to let you know that the variants of the Mexican Flag ("presidential banner") are not official. They are not specified in any legal document nor recognized officialy, they're just in use "de facto". So it should be a good idea to put it back in a separate section, as it used to be, not in the main frame because it gives the idea that those are also co-official flags.
Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Italodal is back. -- PuebloUnited ( talk) 07:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi, I just came across this [1] edit of yours by chance and I'm a bit confused. What's the logic behind de-tagging that? If it's a Reuters picture it's a copyvio no matter what the tags say, it's got to go as fast as possible. Am I missing something? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The links of the sources are dead. And these numbers in the article are confliting with the UN data. Please see the talk page for further informations. Thank's.-- Italodal ( talk) 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. JulieSpaulding ( talk) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi TownDown! I just thought I'd drop by and let you know why I got involved in the HDI article dispute. As you probably know, Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, meaning that if you get rid of someone else's edits more than three times in twenty-four hours, you may be blocked. I've seen some of your edits, and they are very good! Although you haven't broken the 3RR yet, it's getting close to that, and I just wanted to make sure you weren't blocked - Wikipedia needs fine editors such as yourself! Anyway, give me a shout if you need anything. JulieSpaulding ( talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your request at Ssoldbergj's talk page, and decided to take it on myself. What do you think?
.
Connormah (
talk)
22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted because there has been no discussion about changing the map. Also, to be completely honest, the current map being used is more detailed. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm very happy to find another commited Mexican in this vast community. You don't know how happy I am. You should be aware that there are several topics in which a certain user is always trying to push a POV that Mexico is not part of North America but Central America, and if this criteria is not followed, he then says Mexico is part of "Middle America". Then may be you can give us a hand. Gracias. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Town, please do not revert the usage section in the North America article. I'm sure you feel it is wrong but again, this has been long discussed before. See, there are two main texts:
We are fighting to prove that the second option is the most correct. Your changes are reverting the page to the previous status, in which North America = US + Canada. Walterego is an American that also believes that North America includes Mexico. The "bad guy" here is Corticopia, which is now using an anonymous IP (check North America history page) Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you mass-moved a bunch of articles, however, they don't appear to be because of vandalism. Please help me to understand your actions. -- slakr\ talk / 02:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad move reverts Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! Now that you're helping us with all the Mexico-related articles, there's something you should know. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/American(Can)] The newest Corticopia account (the anti-Mexican disrupter). It was just a matter of time after Administrator blocked several pages in which he edit-warred anonymously. So, be notified. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but there is no reason to pass out warnings if you are unwilling to recieve them from others. You have some useful information, but your wording needs to be changed. If you'll look at any other article in Wikipedia, you'll notice it is not in the style you are writing in. Also, you do not need to erase everything that is always there. It is better to add than subtract. Please work WITH others and Stop edit warring. C.Kent87 ( talk) 00:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. TownDown ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I reverted according Non-free content criteria, in the article there wasn't any reference and violated Neutral point of view, also the user C.Kent87 reverted this article more than 3 times in 24 hrs and it's not blocked, and I didn't use any personal attack but the user Seicer did it to me.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for edit warring. Whether you were 'right' or 'wrong' on a particular content position is immaterial. Unless what you were reverting blatantly violated our biographies of living persons policy or was blatant vandalism, there is no exemption to the three revert rule. Protonk ( talk) 07:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
TownDown ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did it because Wikipedia:BLP#Writing style and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources.-- TownDown How's going? 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
BLP stands for biography of living people, and since the Second Mexican Empire ended 142 years ago, none of the individuals from that era are still, you know, living. Regardless of NFCC, BLP, or any other raison du jour, you were warned about edit warring and chose to disregard that warning. Are you aware three declined unblock requests your talk page is locked for the duration of your block ... ? — Kralizec! ( talk) 09:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Where are the personal attacks mentioned in the original block notice? Lara 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello:
Just to let you know that the variants of the Mexican Flag ("presidential banner") are not official. They are not specified in any legal document nor recognized officialy, they're just in use "de facto". So it should be a good idea to put it back in a separate section, as it used to be, not in the main frame because it gives the idea that those are also co-official flags.
Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Italodal is back. -- PuebloUnited ( talk) 07:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)