User talk:JavierNF96: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:23, 17 January 2018

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Conquistador. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You changed sourced text so that it misrepresented the source. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One further note - we don't use our own articles as sources. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I've changed the page you pointed to as it was inaccurate. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must not change or delete sourced text based on your own opinions

That is what you seem to be doing. You apparently aren't even reading the source. The first source at Conquistador mentions Spanish, Portuguese and German conquistadors. You've been reverted twice for your major deletions. Please don't do this sort of thing again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit logged out

It's a really bad idea to do this as although I'm not suggesting it's your reason, some might see it as an attempt to prevent others knowing that you are. However, it's been pretty obvious. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Discovery of America: Voyages of Christopher Columbus. bonadea contributions talk 15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings

We have unequivocal archaeological evidence that the Vikings visited North America. Please don't try to erase them. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 16:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire map

You have been asked repeatedly to discuss your concerns about the map at the talk page discussion, Talk:Spanish_Empire#RfC_about_the_infobox_Spanish_Empire_image. Please stop making your arguments in edit summaries and join the discussion. You have been adding maps that cannot be read, and your refusal to engage in discussion has become disruptive editing. Please take your concerns to the talk page discussion. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2017 (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).

JavierNF96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Favonian, you're behaving in a rather authoritarian way. All Patagonia was Spanish territory as you can see for example in this article: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas" Rectify and leave the absurdity and the banners. JavierNF96 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2017 (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).

JavierNF96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm blocked from using more than one account, it's true, but it's mainly because Favonian has been constantly blocking me in an authoritarian way. The only thing I have tried to do has been to edit a map about the Spanish Empire and some lines of text about the Voyages of Christopher Columbus, and of course I have argued all of them, but instead of dialoguing he has limited himself to block me for editing. It's been after that I've needed to use to use another account. I have made a mistake? YES, but the root of the problem is the authoritarianism of the moderator, who does not allow someone to edit something that he does not like, despite arguing over it. I will not make the same mistake of using other accounts, but I hope it can be edited by arguing without being blocked at any time. JavierNF96 (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You appear to think it's okay to use more than one account if you think you want to use more than one account. That's not the case. The rest of your unblock request is irrelevant. See WP:NOTTHEM. You are welcome to make a new unblock request that talks only about your own inappropriate actions and does not try to blame other people. Yamla (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2017 (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.

Please stop using the wrong unblock template. It's {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, as it says in the block message, not {{unblock on hold}}. I've fixed it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean fill in your unblock reason inside my comment too! I've already fixed your unblock request, above, so you don't need to make another one now. I just showed you how to request unblock next time, should your current request be declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the reviewing admin

See WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by JavierNF96 for some background. The basic problem here is Javier's incessant edit-warring, which he escalated using socks. Favonian (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

JavierNF96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not understand why I have been blocked again, if I have not made any edit neither with this account nor with others.

Accept reason:

Per Bbb23 below, the block on the IP was lifted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I've fixed the unblock request for you.) This account is not currently blocked, so please tell us what it says when you try to edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says: "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia." "This block has been set to expire: 16:51, 9 December 2017." And I have not made any movement with this account, or with others. -said Javier96NF-

Does the message include an IP address? Please tell us the exact message in its entirety. Or if there is an IP address that you wish to keep confidential, please use WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 90.94.208.147 has been blocked (disabled) by Bbb23 for the following reason(s):CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse."

And I have not edited anything since October, which is when I was blocked by Favonian.

This block would be this one by Bbb23. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a new block. That IP address was blocked independently on the same day, October 28, as you were using it along with this account for edit warring at Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The block on the IP was for 42 days and has not yet expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted the block a few days early.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove reliably sourced text or add sources that don't meet WP:RS

At Spanish Empire you removed text sourced to a Yale University Press book and added text sourced to someone on a website with no evidence of expertise. You used the same website at The empire on which the sun never sets plus what looks like a blog. You need to read WP:Verify and WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you removed the same text source to a university press book twice. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Spanish Empire, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, Wikiquote and an anonymous writer on a website are not reliable sources

You need recognised historians, nothing else will suffice for the claim that the Spanish Empire was the first to be called the empire where the sun never sets, a claim that isn't even sourced in The empire on which the sun never sets which in fact suggests that it was used earlier. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source you used at Spanish Empire doesn't seem to back the text

How does " (Patricio O'Moore (1840) "Recuerdos de mi tiempo en Epaña". Page 3-4: "Of his monarch it had been said with truth, since there are annals or historical memories, that in his empire the sun didnt set")" state that the phrase was first used to describe the Spanish Empire? In any case, even if it did, what we really need is modern academic sources. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:@Doug Weller

With all my respect, I think the work makes it quite clear.

"Of his monarch it had been said that since there are annals or historical memories, in his empire the sun did not set"

It is an expression that originated in Spain when the Empire came to have colonies in all the contents.

More evident can not express it. In the same way I am surprised that you do not know that the expression "The Empire in which the sun never sets" is of Spanish origin, I thought it was something popularly known. Did you really think he was of British origin?

And I am surprised that now you demand from me current sources when before you only demanded reliable authors and not blog opinions.