User talk:Filiprino

Your account will be renamed[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Filiprino. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Filiprino~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Respect my close[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

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)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —JJ Be rs 22:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am terrified. Filiprino (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice snarky response. —JJ Be rs 22:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A responsible answer from an all mighty Wikipedia editor. Filiprino (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing or introducing libelous POV material[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Societat Civil Catalana. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked per agreement below. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All-right, 72h no revert. Filiprino (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've unblocked you per your agreement here. Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Constantly edit wars[edit]

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)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consensuos is ongoing. I suggest you to stop edit warring, please. --Miaow 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

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)[reply]

Notices should be neutrally phrased[edit]

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)[reply]

@Xover: Done. Filiprino (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Xover (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))[edit]

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 I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 2 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))[edit]

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 I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning[edit]

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)[reply]

I have answered in your talk page: User_talk:TheRichic#Alleged_vandalism. Filiprino (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Filiprino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not edit warring because I was restoring the consensus achieved in the page talk of the article. However, CrystallizedCarbon has kept removing the consensus achieved because he does not like it. In fact, in his report CrystallizedCarbon has mentioned my edits in the article Societat Civil Catalana, whose consensus stablishes that it is related with far right, as per reliable sources provide. Many sockpuppets have been behind that article, creating continuous edit warring. See reports [1] and [2]

Decline reason:

You cannot edit war to restore what you see consensus to be. Being correct- if you are- is not a defense to edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

August 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ada Colau. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 22:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filiprino, you are edit warring to restore contentious material to Ada Colau. If you revert again I will reblock your account. Get consensus of the talk page for your desired changes.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Impru20^talk 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the above report, and as a result of an obvious and persistent behavioral pattern of disruptive behavior, you have been blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Swarm ♠ 01:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Filiprino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd like to be able to edit Wikipedia. I know that I have bordered the limits of some Wikipedia policies as a result of discussing with users like User:BarceloniUK, User:Sonrisas1, User:Gargaroi, User:Manlorsen and User:ILoveCaracas. But it is a shame that due to two or three articles (Societat Civil Catalana and Miriam Tey) discussions with other conflictive users (some of them already blocked due to sockpuppetry: Sonrisas1 and ILoveCaracas) I get blocked. That's my take. Thanks. Edit: I added a clarification below this unblock request, in response to byteflush citing WP:NOTTHEM.

Decline reason:

CU confirmed block evasion as User:FiliMonkey and User:E380f876. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(Non-administrator comment) WP:NOTTHEM byteflush _Talk 23:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have said due to those discussions, not due to the users. Participating in those discussions conducted me to break the law. If I had not participated or had stopped arguing in time, I would not have been blocked. Filiprino (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think calling out other users' behaviour is going to get you unblocked (specifying that you meant discussions is, IMHO, irrelevant - since it does centre around those named users), but at least you acknowledged the issue I raised. Whether it was a good or a bad way to do it - the reviewing admin will decide. byteflush _Talk 23:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Filiprino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not logged into Wikipedia for a long time. Now I wanted to edit an article and I found I'm still blocked. Thanks.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Filiprino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, I have not logged into Wikipedia since a long time ago. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Thanks.

Decline reason:

I suggest you read WP:GAB. Your unblock request is just repeating your last request and paraphrasing the decline. You need to show that you understand what you are blocked for, and say what edits you will make if unblocked. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your demand of reading WP:GAB lacks concrecy. I already read that article. You are just repeating the same as the other librarian. This talk has circular dependencies. I already commited to not disrupt Wikipedia, I can't say what will I edit because I don't know, I just feel like I want to add content somewhere. Maybe computer science, maybe history, whatever. Filiprino (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]