Jump to content

User talk:Felipito1.966

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Felipito1.966 (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 11 April 2013 (→Why are you hardcoding weights). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Felipito1.966, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Red King (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments of deleted sections - see below

Your use of Continental is a personal insular British word. A more appropriate word would be "international" as the metric system, invented in France, was adopted world-wide ergo it is not solely a "Continental" system. Felipito1.966 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to know anything of Hispanic culture? Who are you anyway? ¿Qué carajo sabes tú de la cultura hispana? Por cierto,¿quién diablos eres? Vai meixar á rúa filliño! unsigned comment by Felipito1.966 (talk)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Guam, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Guam, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Guam. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please stop commas with spaces in numbers. AD 14:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - if you continue to make such disruptive changes, you will be blocked. AD 14:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in English language, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed referring to the long/short scale billion. I am aware that 1 million million (1012) differers greatly from 1 thousand million (109), but that is largely irrelevant. Like newspapers etc., Wikipedia has a "house style" which should be adhered to in order to maintain as much consistency throughout Wikipedia as possible. This style is defined in the Manual of Style (MoS) and accompanying documents, and mandates the short scale (or scientific notation) for writing long numbers (see MOS:NUM#Large numbers).
Additionally, I was taught in a British school (Scottish specifically) and I was taught the 109 variety. Regardless, billion is largely used in the UK today to mean 109,[1] especially in economics and population† (which is what this number is referring to), and has been used by the Government, BBC etc since the 1970s. Indeed, The New Oxford Dictionary of English (version published in 1998) defines billion as "the number equivalent to the product of a thousand and a million; 1,000,000,000 or 109" and lists the 1012 version as "dated, chiefly British".
^† hence why the world population is always reported as being 7 billion rather than 7 milliard/7,000 million
There was also a minor problem with your actual description. Since these days 109 is generally taken as the meaning of billion in the UK, at least by younger people, and other parts of the commonwealth have historically differed in their use (especially Canada due to the high level of US influence) to say "in the UK & Commonwealth" isn't accurate. See Long and short scales#Notes on current usage. "U.S. billion" isn't an accurate term either; while largely associated with the US, the short scale is by no means exclusive to them. Also, 1,800 million would be accurate in the US was well, it would just be more likely to be rendered as 1.8 billion. Above all though it's not really a necessary disambiguation. The number listed is a product of two other numbers, both of which are in hundreds of millions, so confusion is very unlikely to arise (especially since if it meant 1012 it would mean there were about 257 times as many English speakers as there were humans on the planet)
As a side note, the MoS also advises against using ampersands and specifically mandates against using U.S. (with dots) next to UK (which is how we always render UK) and other abbreviated country names (see WP:NOTUSA). Not really a big deal, but something to bear in mind in future.
If by "how do you become a Wikipedia dictator and what qualifies you to determine how we spell and modify", you are referring specifically to me, I am merely enforcing the rules, not making them. If by "you" you mean "one", there is no such person. These things are decided upon by community consensus. I don't know if there are any criteria for being part of the discussions on these matters (if there are it's probably not so much qualifications but standing within the community) but I'm sure you could become involved if you so wished.
Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. When I say I was taught the short scale billion, I mean I was taught to use it and when the term billion was used (in maths, science etc) it referred to 109. However, I assure you I was made fully aware of the long scale billion, and knowledge of it is rather important (especially in subjects such as history and, indeed, English). Similarly, I was taught to use metric units but made fully aware of the imperial system (although in that case nothing much beyond a cursory mention).
Also, no, I am not au fait with English education and never claimed to be - as I said, I was educated in Scotland and have had very little experience with the English system. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter though. Wikipedia does not use long count and your description was misleading. As such, your edit was reverted. That's it. As much as you may dislike it, that is how Wikipedia works. Indeed there are a few things in the MoS that I dislike, but I put up with them since not doing so is against Wikipedia policy. It's nothing personal and just because a particular form is or isn't used on Wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't "correct".‡
^‡ Since there is no body the regulates English like there are for other languages such as French, there really isn't a "correct" way to do anything in English, only an "accepted" way.
Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. When leaving a comment on a talk page, please add your signature to the end so people know who said it. This can be done by adding tour tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you seem to have missed my point. I was only really commenting on the use of the word "correct", and certainly wasn't saying that English doesn't have rules, merely that those rules are de facto rather than de jure (and thus "correct" is probably not the most appropriate term). Regardless, I really don't want to have a general discussion on this or anything else relating to the English language (or at least not here and now). If you have anything else to add on the topic at hand - i.e. your edit and how it conforms to Wikipedia's MoS - then by all means let me know. Otherwise, I bid you good day and hope you will try to adhere to the MoS in future. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another dictator and I suspect you´re American as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipito1.966 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, SineBot is a "bot", an automated program. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish National Health System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casualty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Using diacritics as you did here and here causes problems. You changed Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepcion to Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepción and Caesars Palace to Caesar´s Palace. In the other article you changed Imelda Romualdez to Imelda Romuáldez and Bobby Enriquez to Bobby Enríquez. Do you see what the problem is? Links that were blue and provided assiatance to readers became red and useless. You also changed "enroll" to "enrol". This is a spelling variation an should be left as is. In this edit you changed BTU to kWh but the source was in BTU so that is what it should say. At the same time you changed ton to tonne. Again the source uses ton and it is not the same as tonne. 1 tonne (1,000 kg) is equal to 2,204.62 lb but 1 long ton (2,240 lb) is equal to 1,020 kg. As you can see they are different. Please stop with this sort of thing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you are changing several valid spelling from US to UK English. This should not usually be done. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling. Changing from one style to another will tend to annoy a lot of editors and is not something that should be done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that in Spanish diacritics are used, however this is the English language (American, Canadian, Australian, British and many other national varieties of English) Wikipedia and we use English here. Spanish is used on the Spanish language Wikipedia. So don't add diacritics to words when it causes a red link. By the way the ´ you stuck in Ceasars is not a diacritic. I am not American and I am well aware what is used in my country of birth. You are missing the point. The sources use ton and BTU so that is what Wikipedia uses and does not change them just because you think you know better. If you make another disruptive set of edits as you did here you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Four different editors have reverted you on that article now so I suggest that along with the other links I provided, you also read up on WP:Consensus. Finally you need to stop being rude to others as you were here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive editing

This edit repeats an edit you've made several times and has been reverted by several editors. Tonnes is not the same unit is tons and Btu is supported by the cited source. Please stop this. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tons and BTU

It probably is confusing, even more so than you realise, but it's sourced and the article should use what the source says. The figures should be converted but using the {{Convert}} template as this will avoid errors in calculation. An example is the 350,800,000,000 kWh you put that converts to 1,196,979,280,000,000 BTU, 350,800,000,000 kWh (1.197×1015 BTU), somewhat different than 9,500,000,000,000,000 BTU (2.8×1012 kWh) (2,800,000,000,000 kWh) or 9,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 BTU (2.8×1021 kWh) (2,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 kWh). The problem there is that the word quadrillion wasn't defined in the article so it could be either of them but probably is the first one.

As for the ton or tonnes you can't just substitute one for the other as they don't mean the same thing. Plus the ton was not defined either. So 171 million tons could be 171,000,000 long tons (174,000,000 t) or 171,000,000 short tons (155,000,000 t). Your best idea is to go to the talk page, Talk:United Kingdom and ask there as to which is the best way to provide conversions for those figures.

As to being a Wikipedia editor you already are. Anyone who makes edits, even if it is just one, is an editor. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath, and relax.

As a pretty much uninvolved party I would like to suggest that you take a few deep breaths and stop considering Americanisms to be personal insults to either you or the English language. If you are (as you say you are,) an English teacher then once you understand how things work you'll be able to make good edits, but at the moment your mild attacks on talk pages, and insistent editing style are just going to get you blocked.

  • By continually referring to UK English spellings as being correct, and American English as being incorrect - as well as apparently ignoring good faith advice offered up to you by other editors - you will only get peoples backs up, and ostracize yourself from the community.
  • You also run the danger of other UK English editors considering your edits to be embarrassing, and be the focus of unwanted attention from the very people you seek to appease.

Just a comment. Feel free to reply or disregard, but if you do reply - be a sport and use an edit summary, eh? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

systematic removal of 'convert' templates from 'Road speed limits in the United Kingdom' article

I am puzzled by your systematic removal of 'convert' templates from the Road speed limits in the United Kingdom article over the past few hours. [2]. In the process the conversion of 30 mph into km/h has shifted from 48 km/h to 50 km/h. Similarly with every other UK speed limits which are now converted to the nearest 10 km/h. I would be interested to know why you consider this to be an improvement. Thanks. (Feel free to respond on this page). PeterEastern (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have become an involved editor and reverted this. As pointed out, the new changes were inaccurate; 30mph is 48kph - not 50kph, 60mph is 97kph - not 100kph, 70mph is 113kph not 110kph.
Whilst I would also be interested in knowing Felipito's reasoning for the change there is no valid reason to (knowingly) leave inaccurate information in an article while we wait for him to explain.
I'll also take this opportunity to request (once again) that Felipito uses edit summaries to explain his edits. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feliptio1.996 responded on my talk page with the following comment "I converted them to the nearest decimal as that is what will occur when they are finally updated and modernised. Plus, it looks odd to any person not from Britain looking at the odd Nºs. For example, 30 mph IS 50 km/h in the rest of the world, just go to Éire or France etc... to see that. There is the reason". This is not a argument I follow given that I am not aware of any discussions at present that the UK may 'update and modernise' its speed limits and convert them to km/h. Even if there was, at present they are not 'modernised' and the legal maximums should be a more accurate translation. (also.. please Feliptio1.996 can you respond on this page and not om my talk page. That way we will keep the conversation in one place). PeterEastern (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feliptio: Are you not prepared to debate this or have you just decided to move your attention elsewhere? Personally I find it a bit disturbing that in 2 years of editing WP you have taken so little time to respond to people's comments and questions on your talk page and are still not signing comments properly or creating appropriate headings on other people's talk pages (as with this addition to my talk page where you just added an unsigned paragraph to completely different section here [3]). PeterEastern (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More editing madness

With regard to this edit - are you deliberately trying to irritate other editors and to alienate yourself from them? Firstly, it is poor form to refactor other editors comments - only done in extreme cases - and secondly, it was a pointless edit because you changed it from the correct page name to a redirect, presumably as you have a wikiallergy to the term "ization" and the non-UK inference it holds. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chaheel Riens for spotting this. I hadn't noticed that the edit on my talk page didn't relate to some change elsewhere in WP. It is indeed odd for someone to change the content of someone else's talk page like this without a clear reason. As it happens I was brought-up with British English and use it on a day-to-day basis but fully understand that WP is a bit schizophrenic on the subject choosing an appropriate (or random?) version for each article. This does however seem to be the right approach. I would encourage Felipito it reconsider these types of edits. PeterEastern (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop: you are an embarrassment to editors that use British English

Stop doing this and don't refer to American spelling as "incorrect" as you did here. I normally use British English but have sufficient education to know that there is more than one variety of English in use on this planet. You however appear not to have sufficient proficiency in the language to have gained that understanding. Please keep your uneducated views on and limited knowledge of the English language to yourself. Also, you need to read and inwardly digest the Wikipedia policy on this subject. It's very clear. Furthermore, this weird obsessional treatment of imperial v. metric has to stop. Generally, looking at your edit history I can't see that you add anything worthwhile to Wikipedia. Your main purpose appears to be to pursue your weird obsessional POVs that no one else shares. Look at the comments on your talk page. Unless you change your ways very quickly, I can foresee that the community will conclude that Wikipedia would be better off without you. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments from your talk page

In trying to understand some of the early disjointed comments on this talk page I have come to realise that you are consistently removing warnings about your edits made by other people and where you do add text it is pretty disrespectful. Personally I suggest you heed their advice or I don't think you will be contributing to WP much longer.

For the record your deletions include the following:

  • [5] removed: 'Metrication in the United Kingdom' Although I agree with the opinions that you put in metrication in the United Kingdom, I have had to undo them because they are just that, opinion. Any material you add may only summarise and report a reliable external source - see WP:citing sources. Adding your own opinion and/or research falls foul of WP:No original research. Your mistake is a fairly common one for new editors. I hope you will learn from it and move on to improve or even write new articles within the constraints of being an encyclopedia. --Red King (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the sum total of your additions:

  • [10] Added: "Your use of Continental is a personal insular British word. A more appropriate word would be "international" as the metric system, invented in France, was adopted world-wide ergo it is not solely a "Continental" system.Felipito1.966 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [11] Added: "Who are you to know anything of Hispanic culture? Who are you anyway? ¿Qué carajo sabes tú de la cultura hispana? Por cierto,¿quién diablos eres? Vai meixar á rúa filliño! unsigned comment by used:Felipito1
  • [12] Added: "Yet another dictator and I suspect you´re American as well!unsigned comment by used:Felipito1

Overall, that seems pretty disappointing and paints a picture of someone who isn't very interested in dialogue.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a good way to contribute to WP

I have spent the past hour looking into your edits and I find them pretty disturbing. Since noticing the unsigned comment on my talk page and the criticism from others on this talk page and then the way may you has been removing negative comments from your talk page, I have now spent some time looking into your comments on other people's talk pages which are nearly always combative and are never signed as far as I can see. It is my view that there can be very few reasons why you are not going to be blocked soon. I would certainly support such a move at present. My requests are as follows:

  1. Please engage in discussion with others on points of disagreement
  2. Please sign your comments
  3. Please create appropriate headings on other people's talk pages when making comments
  4. Please be more thoughtful about how you discuss matters. This is a community and it is both important that edits are on balance useful and importantly also that contributors working constructively with other each other, especially where there is disagreement.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been helpfully reminded on my talk page that my initial comment on this talk page titled 'please block this user' was pretty uncivil and confrontational. I have reworked it to be more constructive. PeterEastern (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilocos Sur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Unión (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felipito1.966&oldid=549894796"