|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Democratic peace theory have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Democratic peace theory was changed by Armando AZ (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85038 on 2021-04-17T00:16:16+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 00:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse my English, I'm not an English speaker, but why have you deleted my edit? This is an objective fact, and if you do not want to read the sources, it is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia articles themselves. I don't understand your point. Armando AZ ( talk) 04:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Armando AZ Please take discussion to the Talk page, as I requested in my edit summary. --
Jmc (
talk) 07:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- 👋Hi @
Jmc! I would like you to help me with something. If you look
down the page, you'll see that I made an unblock claim. The important thing is not that but what it say there. I would like to ask you the favor of making a complaint on the
administrators' noticeboard against WMrapids user; I ask you this as a favor since you are the only user I can contact right now. I know what I did is bad but it was for a good reason (with this I have confirmed my suspicions about it). He has replicated the same behaviors in English that he has had in other Wikis, for example:
- Deleting reliable information despite the fact that the sources used were enabled on the noticeboard (at least one of them), in addition to Infobae, which is a journalistic medium that is used in that same article; besides also to including a source from BBC Mundo (considered a perennial source).
- Creating an article that violates various Wikipedia parameters, such as Cleanup, Notability and Tone (and I add an article that violates the WP:POV).
- Also include biased language in the article on the Ayacucho Massacre, which is why this article includes a bias alert. This also happened on the Spanish Wikipedia with the article on the 2022 coup attempt in Peru, which is why he was denounced and subsequently blocked.
- I could give more examples but I think these are enough. I clarify that I am doing all this in
good faith due to these discoveries. There is no intention to
harass anyone here as I am just asking Jmc for a favor.
Armando AZ (
talk) 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also clarify that this has to do with my
first unblock claim, besides that nothing prevents a blocked user from responding to others on the page if this isn't
WP:vandalism.
Armando AZ (
talk) 00:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- One last clarification to make is that WP:TPA only allows blocking in case of recurrence of "accusations", it never allows their deletion. These would also serve as evidence against the user. It is also something that can be applied exceptionally. Armando AZ ( talk) 01:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also clarify that this has to do with my
first unblock claim, besides that nothing prevents a blocked user from responding to others on the page if this isn't
WP:vandalism.
Armando AZ (
talk) 00:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- 👋Hi @
Jmc! I would like you to help me with something. If you look
down the page, you'll see that I made an unblock claim. The important thing is not that but what it say there. I would like to ask you the favor of making a complaint on the
administrators' noticeboard against WMrapids user; I ask you this as a favor since you are the only user I can contact right now. I know what I did is bad but it was for a good reason (with this I have confirmed my suspicions about it). He has replicated the same behaviors in English that he has had in other Wikis, for example:
Your recent editing history at Russian people's militias in Ukraine 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.
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--
WMrapids (
talk) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Reviewing your Global account information, I realized that you have been repeatedly sanctioned on the Spanish Wikipedia for biased edits, even receiving a two-week ban for edit warring and for doing exactly the same thing they accuse me of: ( translated edits sleazy) How the tables turn sometimes, right? Armando AZ ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 05:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
WMrapids (
talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- That way of writing seems uncivil to me.... Armando AZ ( talk) 03:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Armando AZ ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The user who requested my block is not competent to perform that action ( WP:CIR). Below is explained in more detail. Armando AZ ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not at all address the reason for your block, specifically abuse of multiple accounts. Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 28 April 2023 (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.
Copied and pasted from my talk page's section about Centralismo (Peru): "Reviewing your Global account information, I realized that you have been repeatedly sanctioned on the Spanish Wikipedia for biased edits, even receiving a two-week ban for edit warring and for doing exactly the same thing they accuse me of: ( translated edits sleazy) How the tables turn sometimes, right?"--- This refers to WMrapids.
-I also make this claim to warn other users about it. Armando AZ ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Post data: The last two edits I made were typo/spelling corrections (check here). That is protected under WP:BE. Armando AZ ( talk) 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Democratic peace theory have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Democratic peace theory was changed by Armando AZ (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85038 on 2021-04-17T00:16:16+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 00:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse my English, I'm not an English speaker, but why have you deleted my edit? This is an objective fact, and if you do not want to read the sources, it is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia articles themselves. I don't understand your point. Armando AZ ( talk) 04:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Armando AZ Please take discussion to the Talk page, as I requested in my edit summary. --
Jmc (
talk) 07:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- 👋Hi @
Jmc! I would like you to help me with something. If you look
down the page, you'll see that I made an unblock claim. The important thing is not that but what it say there. I would like to ask you the favor of making a complaint on the
administrators' noticeboard against WMrapids user; I ask you this as a favor since you are the only user I can contact right now. I know what I did is bad but it was for a good reason (with this I have confirmed my suspicions about it). He has replicated the same behaviors in English that he has had in other Wikis, for example:
- Deleting reliable information despite the fact that the sources used were enabled on the noticeboard (at least one of them), in addition to Infobae, which is a journalistic medium that is used in that same article; besides also to including a source from BBC Mundo (considered a perennial source).
- Creating an article that violates various Wikipedia parameters, such as Cleanup, Notability and Tone (and I add an article that violates the WP:POV).
- Also include biased language in the article on the Ayacucho Massacre, which is why this article includes a bias alert. This also happened on the Spanish Wikipedia with the article on the 2022 coup attempt in Peru, which is why he was denounced and subsequently blocked.
- I could give more examples but I think these are enough. I clarify that I am doing all this in
good faith due to these discoveries. There is no intention to
harass anyone here as I am just asking Jmc for a favor.
Armando AZ (
talk) 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also clarify that this has to do with my
first unblock claim, besides that nothing prevents a blocked user from responding to others on the page if this isn't
WP:vandalism.
Armando AZ (
talk) 00:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- One last clarification to make is that WP:TPA only allows blocking in case of recurrence of "accusations", it never allows their deletion. These would also serve as evidence against the user. It is also something that can be applied exceptionally. Armando AZ ( talk) 01:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also clarify that this has to do with my
first unblock claim, besides that nothing prevents a blocked user from responding to others on the page if this isn't
WP:vandalism.
Armando AZ (
talk) 00:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- 👋Hi @
Jmc! I would like you to help me with something. If you look
down the page, you'll see that I made an unblock claim. The important thing is not that but what it say there. I would like to ask you the favor of making a complaint on the
administrators' noticeboard against WMrapids user; I ask you this as a favor since you are the only user I can contact right now. I know what I did is bad but it was for a good reason (with this I have confirmed my suspicions about it). He has replicated the same behaviors in English that he has had in other Wikis, for example:
Your recent editing history at Russian people's militias in Ukraine 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.
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--
WMrapids (
talk) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Reviewing your Global account information, I realized that you have been repeatedly sanctioned on the Spanish Wikipedia for biased edits, even receiving a two-week ban for edit warring and for doing exactly the same thing they accuse me of: ( translated edits sleazy) How the tables turn sometimes, right? Armando AZ ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 05:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
WMrapids (
talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- That way of writing seems uncivil to me.... Armando AZ ( talk) 03:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Armando AZ ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The user who requested my block is not competent to perform that action ( WP:CIR). Below is explained in more detail. Armando AZ ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not at all address the reason for your block, specifically abuse of multiple accounts. Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 28 April 2023 (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.
Copied and pasted from my talk page's section about Centralismo (Peru): "Reviewing your Global account information, I realized that you have been repeatedly sanctioned on the Spanish Wikipedia for biased edits, even receiving a two-week ban for edit warring and for doing exactly the same thing they accuse me of: ( translated edits sleazy) How the tables turn sometimes, right?"--- This refers to WMrapids.
-I also make this claim to warn other users about it. Armando AZ ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Post data: The last two edits I made were typo/spelling corrections (check here). That is protected under WP:BE. Armando AZ ( talk) 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)