User talk:CieloEstrellado

Archives

Coordinate templates

In this recent edit you replaced the use of {{coord}} with {{coor title dm}}. The latter is deprecated, and should not be used. Please only use {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was unintentional. If you look at other similar edits I made that day ([1] [2] [3]), I didn't commit this error. Thanks for the notice. :-) ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were subjected to a sockpuppet attack

FYI, looking at the history of Sticky & Sweet Tour and your last talk page archive, you were subjected to a sockpuppet attack. Alkclark and Dancefloor royalty and KM*hearts*MC were all the same person, operating in conjunction. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alkclark and User talk:Tiptoety#Sockpuppetry case concerning Alkclark. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Greece GDP figures

I noticed that your good work in updating GDP figures. Could you kindly update the GDP per capita and nominal figures of Greece article to reflect your work (2008 figures)? Thanks! 77.83.166.161 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

I see you were the one who scripted the updated the rankings from their relevant sources... can you please update it again? At least one of the countries is no longer accurately ranked according to the CIA World Factbook. Could you also (or instead) provide me with the script because I'd like to see how you did it :) Cheers, --Carbon Rodney 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Safari 4 PB (5528.16) on Mac OS X 10.5.6.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Safari 4 PB (5528.16) on Mac OS X 10.5.6.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Thanks for the notice. I fixed it.--Avala (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Template:Infobox Chile Cabinet/testcases, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.Debresser (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

I altered the table in on List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita to enable it to sort properly but you have changed it back so that the sorting fails. Why did you do that? Bagunceiro (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CieloEstrellado, we are considering splitting the table on List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita to three independent columns, like on List of countries by GDP (PPP). What do you think? Please share your thoughts at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita instead of just reverting good-faith edits. Thanks. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you did it all! The article looks much better now. Thanks for your work. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:PPD logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:PPD logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long URLs

Please see this lengthy list of problems with very long URLs.LeadSongDog come howl 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not personalize it, that is not constructive. The issue has nothing to do with the target being imf.org or any other domain, it is simply very bad design practice to use very long URLs for several reasons. First, many browsers break on 2084 byte URLs, and some of these cause forms of the notorious "buffer overflow vulnerability". This makes good network security people nervous. Accordingly, many firewalls are configured to block them, typically at (installation-specific) shorter lengths even as short as 127 or 255 bytes. Second, numeric data is already a magnet for vandalism on WP. When such vandalism gets directed against links like these it will be undetectable except by exceptional anti-vandal efforts. They are, in practice, not maintainable. Third, they are not accessible design, raising barriers to the participation of editors with disabilities. Just imagine a blind editor, trying to edit that section using an audio screen reader. Just the thought makes me shudder. Fourth, they are unnecessarily transient. Please consider using webcitation or other method instead to get a short, stable url to serve the same purpose. LeadSongDog come howl 03:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Dead reference

Template:Dead reference has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Elvey (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile article moves

Hi I can delete those redirects as you requested, but I could also have done the moves for you just as easily if you had requested them on the template. So it is now up to you do do the moves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newman

Please don't add such categories without citing a very reliable source; if the article doesn't mention it, he doesn't belong in that category. Rodhull andemu 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arica y Parinacota Region

Please see my edit summary. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CieloEstrellado. You have new messages at Theserialcomma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theserialcomma (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic asphyxiation

I accidentally pop-upped you on the article. Can you please not insert Carradine until reports confirm this is how he died? Thanks. -->David Shankbone 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine Flu, Southern Hemisphere

Thanks for your update. Yes, it continues to spread. Fortunately--so far--it has been mild. One thing I think would be extremely helpful would be quotes from public health authorities, How likely is it to mutate to a more lethal strain, and what would be the signs this was starting to happen?

Please help with this or any other aspect. I think swine flu is a very important topic. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Anti-Korean and South Korea

? --211.179.112.235 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays in Chile.

CieloEstrellado, please stop writing in wrong data in the Public Holidays in Chile page.

Your most notorious mistakes are:

1) You keep stating that May 1 is a holiday since 2003 (On January 16, 2003, May 1 is established as a holiday in the Labor Code.), not even erasing the preexisting information (On 1931-04-30, President Carlos Ibáñez del Campo promulgated the "Decree Enforceable as Law" ("Decreto con Fuerza de Ley") 130, marking May 1 (May Day) as holiday.).

2) You keep stating that censuses are holidays since 1970 (On December 10, 1970 Law 17,374 established as holiday the day when the official census is held.), which isn't true: 1970 census WASN'T a holiday; censuses in 1982 and 1992 were holidays due to ad-hoc laws (18,116 and 19,116); law 19,790 (published in february 1992) modified law 17,374 to mark any further censuses as holidays (1992's was the first one due to this law). I cleared up that confusion in a revision, CITING sources, but you erased the entire paragraph.

3) You state that law 18,700 stablishes holidays for elections (On May 6, 1988, Law 18,700 established that days coinciding with elections and plebiscites are to be legal holidays.), but this isn't the whole story: presidential (not parliamentary) elections have been holidays since the early XX century. Again, you erased the entire paragraph.

4) You keep erasing the link to the main "Días Feriados en Chile" source, but -oddly- not to a secondary link within the same source.

It would seem that each time you edit this page, you simply paste in a copy of your previous version of the contents, without bothering to read the new revision's differences. IMHO, that's not the proper way to edit wikipedia content.

Mfarah (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discuss before u edit an article

stop editing without having a discussion. u r constantly vandalizing 'developed county' article. come to the discussion page and have a discussion with people. stop acting like a coward and come to discussion page. prove that your opinion is rightHawkchoi (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions (reverse chronological order)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions (reverse chronological order), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (reverse chronological order)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Grand Slam Championships

I nominated it for speedy deletion (per G4). I also PRODed List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions (reverse chronological order).

You could have done it yourself, but thanks anyway :-) RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey do u understand english??

what part of discuss with other people before u edit don't u understand??? didn't i tell u to close ur mouth if u don't have courage to discuss openly with other people?? that edition of developed country is not objective as i have already stated in the discussion page. did u even read it?Hawkchoi (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Honduran political crisis POV tag

Please discuss your POV tag on the talk page with sufficient specificity to enable your concerns to be addressed and rectified. Thank you. -- Rico 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was hasty. -- Rico

Order of honduran constitutional violations

Unless we state reasons for the ordering, it's just arbitrary. And any reasons are going to be inevitably criticized as POV. I see some logic in your edits, but I think we just have to put them in numerical order. Homunq (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Honduras Overview

You have reverted the properly cited, properly sectioned, NPOV edits of 2 users 4 times now. The Wikipedia:Three revert rule should be of note. If you disagree with the edit, please discuss the matter on Talk:Constitution of Honduras#Article 102. A "lack of context" comment is subjective and is solved by adding content, not removing it. Int21h (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Holidays in Chile

You keep reverting the properly cited, properly sourced, information that I wrote in. Considering your behaviour in the Honduras articles, it seems you simply can not discuss or edit content following the Wikipedia guidelines. Enough is enough: I'm requesting a page protection to end this edit war. mfarah (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.196.70.195 (talk) [reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated edit warring despite numerous editor concerns with little to no communication attempt on your part. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 15:18, 13 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think this block is unjustified. A simple warning would have sufficed. I'm not a disruptive user and the article in question is rarely edited. I will try to discuss the issue with the other user. I hope this block can be reversed. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for edit warring before, and it looks like you were asked to stop in the section just above this. And the one above that. And I see several other instances where you were asked to discuss, all clustered near the bottom of this page. This block appears well justified. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Facts: # I was blocked for 72 hours by User:Tanthalas39, after User:mfarah posted a request for the article Public holidays in Chile to be protected indefinitely. # Editing of Public holidays in Chile evolved into what may be called a slow edit-war between User:mfarah and me. We are both guilty of edit-warring. # I made an edit (not a revert) to the article on June 17, which was quickly reverted by User:mfarah. The same day User:mfarah posted a message on my Talk page, to which I did not reply. Of this I am guilty. The article remained untouched on User:mfarah's version for the next 9 days. # I reverted User:mfarah's edits twice on June 26. Both reverts where reverted back by User:mfarah on the same day. The article remained untouched on User:mfarah's version for the following 15 days. # Yesterday I reverted User:mfarah's edits once again and User:mfarah's quickly reverted the article back to his version. # Then, today, he requested that the article be protected indefinitely. One hour later I was blocked for 72 hours. ;Conclusion: #The block came one hour after User:mfarah posted a message on my Talk page titled "Public Holidays in Chile", warning me of his plans. By the time I logged on to Wikipedia and saw his message, I was already blocked for 72 hours. According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings: [...] administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. #A 72-hour ban is uncalled for and alienating, given the nature of the dispute. See: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Duration of blocks. #I think I deserve a chance. Even vandals (which I am definitely not) are given one.

Decline reason:

You were given many chances to discuss the situation instead of edit warring and having been blocked for the same thing before, should understand the consequences. Please understand that any form of edit warring is not something that the community here tolerates well. I don't see anything here that leads me to believe that you appreciate that your actions were inappropriate which unfortunately means I can't comfortably unblock you at this time. Shell ^babelfish 05:33, 14 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowlege my past mistakes and promise that in the future I will always discuss first.

Decline reason:

This is a short block; while it runs its course you will be able to consolidate your knowledge and understanding of the areas of policy which it appears you have to date not fully understood.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 14 July 2009 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please have mercy. Do I really deserve 72 hours for what was one revert? I had never seen such a harsh punishment applied before, especially on a valuable contributor like myself. I made a mistake and I've acknowledged it. Please take a look at the article's history to see what this is all about. This was not a typical revert war. I've seen cases of 50 reverts per day where users are merely given a warning. This is not OK.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please have mercy. Do I really deserve 72 hours for what was one revert? I had never seen such a harsh punishment applied before, especially on a valuable contributor like myself. I made a mistake and I've acknowledged it. Please take a look at the [[Public holidays in Chile|article's history]] to see what this is all about. This was not a typical revert war. I've seen cases of 50 reverts per day where users are merely given a warning. This is not OK. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please have mercy. Do I really deserve 72 hours for what was one revert? I had never seen such a harsh punishment applied before, especially on a valuable contributor like myself. I made a mistake and I've acknowledged it. Please take a look at the [[Public holidays in Chile|article's history]] to see what this is all about. This was not a typical revert war. I've seen cases of 50 reverts per day where users are merely given a warning. This is not OK. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please have mercy. Do I really deserve 72 hours for what was one revert? I had never seen such a harsh punishment applied before, especially on a valuable contributor like myself. I made a mistake and I've acknowledged it. Please take a look at the [[Public holidays in Chile|article's history]] to see what this is all about. This was not a typical revert war. I've seen cases of 50 reverts per day where users are merely given a warning. This is not OK. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The problem is it wasn't one revert, it was many, across several articles. You were asked to stop multiple times and did not until you were blocked. What assurance do we have that you won't do this again? That's what we're looking for here. Blocks are not intended as punishment, they're intended to stop disruption. Unless we are certain that the disruption won't continue (which involves you demonstrating an understanding of the problem), we have no reason to lift your block early. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was never warned a block was coming. That would have been enough to change my behavior. I literally woke up one day to find myself blocked for three days. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thoroughly read the Wikipedia policy on this matter and I've promised that I won't repeat my disruptive behavior. What else do you want me to do? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]