Crystallizedcarbon (talk | contribs) 3RR notice |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
If you continue vandalizing articles I will have to report to a librarian for you to be banning. You need to include reliable sources in your edits and Catalan is not a nationality legally, we don't care if catalans feel like that or not, we use objetive data. [[User:TheRichic|TheRichic]] ([[User talk:TheRichic|talk]]) 14:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
If you continue vandalizing articles I will have to report to a librarian for you to be banning. You need to include reliable sources in your edits and Catalan is not a nationality legally, we don't care if catalans feel like that or not, we use objetive data. [[User:TheRichic|TheRichic]] ([[User talk:TheRichic|talk]]) 14:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
: I have answered in your talk page: [[User_talk:TheRichic#Alleged_vandalism]]. [[User:Filiprino|Filiprino]] ([[User talk:Filiprino#top|talk]]) 15:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
: I have answered in your talk page: [[User_talk:TheRichic#Alleged_vandalism]]. [[User:Filiprino|Filiprino]] ([[User talk:Filiprino#top|talk]]) 15:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon|talk]]) 18:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:48, 17 August 2018
Your account will be renamed
23:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Respect my close
It says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." for a reason, and I marked it as such for a reason; please respect that and refrain from further commentary there. Reiterating your point over and over again is not going to get it accepted, and the other editors were beginning to lose their patience for that behavior. This is not a productive use of time, so I marked it as closed. You can believe what you want, but on this project, consensus is the ultimate rule, and you have to respect that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- You are the believers here. Consensus? Bullshit. A consensus among a group of suckers is not consensus. You can enjoy Donald Trump the most, the rest of the world is congratulated by your consensus. Filiprino (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you seriously think that calling us suckers will get us to accept your viewpoint? Please, chill out. Ahunt is not even from the USA, and Trump is a red herring here. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. See WP:AXE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- You are the ones not standing the heat. And you are the ones throwing the red herring. If not, I do not understand why you are still answering my comments. Filiprino (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you seriously think that calling us suckers will get us to accept your viewpoint? Please, chill out. Ahunt is not even from the USA, and Trump is a red herring here. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. See WP:AXE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Filiprino. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add
{{Db-u1}}
to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your insistence on canvassing in your userspace. The thread is Inappropriate userspace content?. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at User:Filiprino/sandbox. —JJBers 22:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
January 2018
Hello, I'm SkyWarrior. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tabarnia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SkyWarrior 18:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tabarnia. Your edits appear to constitute 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. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing or introducing libelous POV material
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tabarnia, you may be blocked from editing.
Wikipedia is a serious project. People who use it for political propaganda do great harm to the project. I suggest any proposed edits you discuss in talk page, obtain wide consensus. Otherwise you should be reverted and eventually topic banned. I see in talk page of one page you have already stated your intention to "censor" the page because of your political views. This is not acceptable. Gracias. 79.159.80.28 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- What you are saying is because you say so, but that does not mean it is true. The fact is that you are reverting an article without further discussion to a previous state from the status quo. Filiprino (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Described by association and probable original research.The discussion is about the topic Tabarnia. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
![Stop icon with clock](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Appointment_green.svg/48px-Appointment_green.svg.png)
Filiprino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Recently I have been working on topics related to Societat Civil Catalana like Somatemps, Inés Arrimadas, 2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis and Tabarnia. Societat Civil Catalana and Tabarnia have been a source of conflicts. But they link to Somatemps, Inés Arrimadas and Spanish constitutional crisis. The latter articles' sources have the same view originally available in Societat Civil Catalana article (i.e. Somatemps is far-right, not allegedly far-right or considered by some as far-right) and Societat Civil Catalana not being important as consensus in Spanish constitutional crisis states. As I understand I have not made disruptive edits nor pushed biased content. I was preserving sourced material. But I admit that maybe I have surpassed the reversion limit. It is difficult to control when you revert and when you don't when you are only changing small words here and there and reverting blanking of pages because one considers it is an obvious vandalism (as per WP:3RRNO point 4). I should simply had to have stopped reversion before and seek for dispute resolution. I suppose that is the next step to do. Filiprino (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Hello; if you agree to stop edit warring, discuss the matter on the article talk page, and use dispute resolution procedures if needed, I would be willing to unblock you assuming TonyBallioni has no objection. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is what I would do because nobody answers anything in the talk page. And even if someone answered it would lead no nothing because there is no possible consensus to achieve between two users. As a matter of fact, the conflicting user has not answered any of my arguments. Filiprino (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you agree to 0RR on all pages on the English Wikipedia for the next 72 hours, I will lift your block. For clarity, 0RR means that you will not make any reverts to any page for any reason (WP:3RRNO applies, but given that you seem to be having issues with it, I'd just stick with don't revert and let someone else handle it.) If you are fine with these terms, I don't have an objection to you being unblocked by another administrator or myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- All-right, 72h no revert. Filiprino (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Great. I've unblocked you per your agreement here. Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- All-right, 72h no revert. Filiprino (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you agree to 0RR on all pages on the English Wikipedia for the next 72 hours, I will lift your block. For clarity, 0RR means that you will not make any reverts to any page for any reason (WP:3RRNO applies, but given that you seem to be having issues with it, I'd just stick with don't revert and let someone else handle it.) If you are fine with these terms, I don't have an objection to you being unblocked by another administrator or myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is what I would do because nobody answers anything in the talk page. And even if someone answered it would lead no nothing because there is no possible consensus to achieve between two users. As a matter of fact, the conflicting user has not answered any of my arguments. Filiprino (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Blocked
I've blocked you again, this time for 72 hours, because you violated your unblock conditions of 0RR with this edit, which reverted text added to the article with this edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- User:TonyBallioni Why is the increase in time? Can't you block for another 24 hours? How much time has to pass in order to go back to 24h blocking? Filiprino (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- The increase in time is because you went straight back to the same page to continue edit warring after you were unblocked on the condition that you make no reverts (0RR). A longer time is needed because you've shown that you don't intend to follow the unblock conditions, even for a relatively short period of time. I've made the block match the length that the unblock conditions were supposed to last. You are free to appeal this block using the instruction in the template above, and another administrator will review the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I edited the page because I did not consider it would be edit warring. I have made other edits in Somatemps corroborating the information in Societat Civil Catalana. But other editors simply don't want to read or follow links. It is not suitable to replicate the material in multiple articles. Filiprino (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Constantly edit wars
You are invited to a discussion about your war editions. Here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Edit_wars_in_Tabarnia_artcles_and_related--ILoveCaracas (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tabarnia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Miaow 15:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tabarnia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Miaow 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the consensus was already reached. User "ILoveCaracas" seems to be trolling or something. He added a section to the Village Pump where I explained my edits but he kept ignoring me. He did not know what is archive.org, confusing it with a fake website impersonating "El Triangle" (www.eltriangle.eu), making a lengthy statement based on that. And more and more ad hominem fallacies. Filiprino (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Consensuos is ongoing. I suggest you to stop edit warring, please. --Miaow 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is no consensus at all. Nobody is discussing anything in the talk page. The article is frozen ad infinitum. There is only people doing edit warring and accusing others of doing disruptive editing... Filiprino (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Consensuos is ongoing. I suggest you to stop edit warring, please. --Miaow 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the consensus was already reached. User "ILoveCaracas" seems to be trolling or something. He added a section to the Village Pump where I explained my edits but he kept ignoring me. He did not know what is archive.org, confusing it with a fake website impersonating "El Triangle" (www.eltriangle.eu), making a lengthy statement based on that. And more and more ad hominem fallacies. Filiprino (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Notices should be neutrally phrased
Hi Filiprino. Regarding your notice posted in this edit. I appreciate that you may have been frustrated by negative interactions with the editor in question, but this notice is not phrased neutrally: rather, it reads like gloating over another editor being sanctioned. I would strongly encourage you to either rephrase it to be ruthlessly neutral (just facts), or to redact it entirely (self-revert the edit is easiest). As it stands it is unbecoming, and might reflect poorly on you should your own behaviour ever come under scrutiny for whatever reason.
I would also suggest you consider whether such a notice is actually necessary in the first place. I can't off the top of my head see why other editors would need to be aware that the article's creator is currently blocked (you may, of course, be aware of some reason that I am not). Such notices are typically used only in cases of persistent socking or connected contributors, but then only in order for other editors to be aware of potential problems in future edits. An editor being blocked indefinitely is by its nature not something other editors need to take into account (it reflects an absence of future edits, not potential for problematic ones). --Xover (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Somatemps. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Issuing level 2 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Somatemps. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism warning
If you continue vandalizing articles I will have to report to a librarian for you to be banning. You need to include reliable sources in your edits and Catalan is not a nationality legally, we don't care if catalans feel like that or not, we use objetive data. TheRichic (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have answered in your talk page: User_talk:TheRichic#Alleged_vandalism. Filiprino (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)