User talk:Javito1993

Javito1993, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Javito1993! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm MrE. Your recent edit(s) to the page Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — MrE (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check your information before publishing. All data must correspond to this chart. Plus, you keep adding incomplete information to the graphs. Add all the info to the charts, it becomes hard to check what was updated and what was not. — MrE (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

Hello,

Please refrain from doing unconstructive edits such as this one. If you want to update any info, please wait until the numbers are actually released instead of adding empty spaces to the graphs. There is no point in doing so and doesn't add anything of use or interest to the article.

Also, this is a friendly reminder that flying under the radar and ignoring advice as well as attempts at communication is not an option. Thank you. CodeMars04 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeMars04: The sources I used to edit the page COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia are government-based, primarily the Twitter account MinSaludCol (@MinSaludCol) which the official account of the Colombian Ministry of Health. I apologise I was not able to keep track of the Talk page for a few days (thus, did not see your message till a few days ago) but happy to discuss any matter next time I edit this page on Wikipedia. Javito1993 (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. While I acknowledge that your edits of new confirmed cases and deaths were correct and matched government updates, I would like you to consider for the future that MinSalud does also release updates on new recoveries and testing, so you could have also updated the daily recoveries since it would seem contradictory to keep the graphs for cases and deaths updated daily but not the one for recoveries, which are updated by the government at the same time. Likewise, I'll be glad to discuss any further concern you might have on the matter, but in the meantime I sincerely hope you can sort out this misunderstanding with your account. CodeMars04 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina. 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — MrE (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia, you may be blocked from editing. Flix11 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina. — MrE (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Flix11 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: Unvalid warning as sources used for updating Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are government-based: 1) Twitter account Kemenkes IR (@KemenkesIR) - Ministry of Health of Indonesia, 2) COVID-19 Dashboard Indonesian Government - https://covid19.go.id/peta-sebaran, 3) Twitter account Natural Disaster Management Agency of Indonesia (@BNBP_Indonesia). Javito1993 (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of them updated before you (16:12 local, 9:12 UTC). BNPB updated on 18:17 (11:17 UTC). The go.id was going bust with server and the KemenkesRI updated on 16:39 (9:39 UTC). The earliest per Google search was on 16:18 (9:18 local). So where did your data (which stated 4 less cases despite "3" and "7" buttons are faraway on both actual computer/laptop keyboard and virtual keyboard on full screen cellphones; thought a typo but couldn't because of this) come from? At least give the link on edit summary. Flix11 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: Likely a typo error as deaths and recoveries data were accurate. Javito1993 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina

Seriously, please stop adding incorrect and/or incomplete information to the page. Check your sources before publishing or I'll report you. — MrE (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment.

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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2021 (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).

Javito1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I maintain the following Wikipedia pages up to date with government-based data daily to prevent them falling out of date: -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in India -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia -COVID-19 pandemic in Japan -COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan -COVID-19 pandemic in Chile -COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal Wikipedia users administering the following pages have warned me from stopping editing these pages, however when I do edit them I add government-based data and did not intend to disrupt or affect in any manner those pages. It’s more of a “who gets to edit the page first” issue: -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia -Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia I don’t mind being blocked from editing but I’m afraid those pages I mentioned above will fall out of date. Here, I intended to help but clearly some Wikipedia pages are assigned specific users so other users cannot edit them without the previous approval or communication

Decline reason:

There were several attempts to communicate with you for over a week. Have you read the comments above? Do you see what the problem was the resulted in your block? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:51, 10 July 2021 (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.

@Daniel Case:, HighInBC: Note that this editor was contributing via mobile, so they may easily have overlooked any talkpage notices (see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). As far as I could tell – having observed them on the Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany page – they were making good-faith and constructive edits overall. There were apparently some objections about technical details of how best to update the figures in the case of the Argentina page, but other than the failure to respond to those, I see no sign of a disruptive stance. An indef block, and for "account being mainly used for trolling, disruption or harassment" at that, seems definitely over the top to me. I'd recommend unblocking. Javito1993, could you please comment here on how you intend to deal with those challenges regarding the correctness of your data? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, the mobile version has been such a blight. We really do need to depend on talk page communication. I have no objection if any admin wants to respond to the review request differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only way to find a solution to this issue is having one administrator from wikipedia assigning me specific pages (i.e. countries) to edit in regards to COVID-19 pandemic statistics. Clearly pages like the one from Argentina and Colombia are already maintained by other well intentioned editors like myself and I do not intend to edit or compete for editing with them. Javito1993 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't work that way. Admins are not anyone's bosses here, and I wouldn't want to be that way. The most I could tell you is to pick some of those other pages yourself and work on them. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Daniel rightly says, that's not really how things work on Wikipedia. Nobody "owns" certain pages. The only thing you need to understand is, if you're going to edit a certain page, you are expected to strive for consensus with other interested editors about how to edit it, and you need to be ready to talk about that. And if other people politely ask you to avoid certain types of edit, it's usually a good idea to avoid them.

That said, as far as I'm concerned, you'd be certainly welcome to continue editing the German statistics page the way you were doing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Glad to hear we have reached an agreement here. Will check the talk site and communicate clearly with other editors in future editing. Javito1993 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know my user/IP address continues to be blocked. Javito1993 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you weren't unblocked yet. I've unblocked now, per the discussion above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrE: Your unfounded accusations of disruptive editing to the page Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina resulted in block of my user profile in Wikipedia for 4 days and unfortunately due to this, the pages I was editing for with government based data (e.g. Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in India, Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, COVID-19 pandemic in Japan, COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal) have fallen out of date. In addition, the sources I used to edit the page Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina are https://www.argentina.gob.ar/salud/coronavirus-COVID-19/sala-situacion - Official COVID-19 Dashboard of the Argentine Ministry of Health, which you do not seem to fully follow as you sometimes miss 1 to 2 deaths in the "Daily deaths" chart. Please consider no one is the owner of any Wikipedia page. I'm sure if we communicate effectively we can reach to an agreement.

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javito1993.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (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).

Javito1993 (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 here. I only use one account which is this account to make edits and never tried to log out to attempt evading any penalty for bad editing and sock puppetry. @Daniel Case:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I thought this issue has been solved already? The reasons to incur in sock puppetry according to the respective Wikipedia page are the following: - Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address ~ I have never attempted to log out from my account to keep editing through IP addresses to vandalise or cause disruptive editing. In fact I just recently created my Wikipedia account after using an IP address for months then decided to join Wikipedia. - Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions ~ This is my first Wikipedia account, therefore I do not see how I fit here. - Using another person's account (piggybacking) ~ Same reason as above - Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users ~ Same reason as above Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry) ~ I have never made use of any other Wikipedia user account to cause disruptive editing or vandalising Wikipedia pages~~~~Javito1993 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence against you is compelling. I am declining this request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2021 (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.

@PhilKnight: I started editing COVID-19 Statistics data on several Wikipedia pages around April 2021 starting with the page Statistics of the COVID-19 Pandemic in India. I used an IP address to make those edits as back in the day I wasn’t registered in Wikipedia. I then decided to create a personal Wikipedia user account around the end of June 2021 (as requested by Wikipedia) and then few days later after creating this account, I got blocked due to edit warring issues that other Wikipedia users unfairly treated as “Disruptive editing” and “Vandalising”(please, confirm this with @Future Perfect at Sunrise:). I admit that after the block I used another IP address to attempt editing some Wikipedia pages I was maintaining as I was afraid these pages would fall out of date because of the block (I just updated them today! Please see Statistics of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany, Statistics of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Peru, COVID-19 Pandemic in Nepal, Statistics of the COVID-19 Pandemic in India to corroborate this). I’m sincerely not interested in passing myself as other person or disrupt the editing of other well-intentioned users. I’m here to be able to collaborate with Wikipedia and become part of the network of people here that serve for the dissemination of open knowledge and learning.

See Joplin201017 (talk · contribs) - self admitted socking. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2021 (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).

Javito1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@PhilKnight: To start off, I admit @Joplin201017: is sock of Javito1993 and therefore your check user on my account was correct. I sincerely apologize for breaching the WP:SOCK as I now know understand in detail the policies that govern Wikipedia and thus deeply regret my actions and erroneous decisions. I will never violate the WP:SOCK policy if you give me another chance. However, in my defense, I created the Javito1993 editor without knowing in depth these policies in the first place (as I was just starting in Wikipedia) and how to effectively communicate with users through the talk page (you can ask @Future Perfect at Sunrise: if you need more evidence on this). By the time I realized that some of my edits were causing distress to other editors by them thinking that I was disruptive editing their preferred pages, I was already blocked (this account), as you can read in this SPI. Moreover, the person who initiated the SPI against Javito1993 and Joplin201017 wanted at any cost to stop me from editing pages he thought he was the only one entitled to, even violating my IP privacy to build a SPI case at any cost and himself was found of breaching the WP:SOCK policy. Back then when this account was blocked I did not know how to regain credibility and show that my contributions were well intentioned, and therefore this drove me into creating @Joplin201017: to start again on Wikipedia. I know understand that this was a clear breach of the WP:SOCK policy and I shall not do it again if you give me another chance. If this helps to change your decision, I have extensively contributed to several Wikipedia pages in good faith, as you can appreciate in contributions here. Ever since I created this new account, I have immensely contributed to the update of the statistics section of multiple COVID-19 country Wikipedia pages that were previously out dated such as the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran and COVID-19 pandemic in France pages. I decided to undertake this immense effort after I realized that most regular editors of these pages stopped updating them by mid July 2020 although the pandemic is still raging to date. I have been thanked by several editors for my efforts throughout these few months in Wikipedia. Could you please reconsider your decision? Thank you.Javito1993 (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You attempted to mislead us earlier. That alone would be enough to deny the unblock request. Additionally, complaining about other editors is inappropriate here. You were blocked for your violations, not because of anyone else. Your best bet is to go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you will need to explain why we should trust you when you've gone out of your way to demonstrate you are not truthful. Yamla (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2021 (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.

@Yamla: I understand where are you coming from. I apologize for my past mistakes and will take the six month break to prove the seriousness on my case. It has been a rough journey for me as a new editor but now I have acquired knowledge on how Wikipedia functions. If I’m given another chance after WP:SO, I promise to contribute with updating COVID-19 related articles as my main interest is epidemiology/virology articles and also other articles where I feel I can contribute with well sourced information. Thanks for your reply. Javito1993 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

@Bbb23: with the current surge in COVID-19 cases in Russia, Ukraine and Romania, and given that I created the Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Russia/Cumulative and daily charts template page in good faith to maintain updated COVID-19 statistics in Russia, and extensively contributed with the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine and COVID-19 pandemic in Romania pages, I was wondering if you could give me access to edit these three pages? I understand if you do not but thanks anyway for your reply to this request. Javito1993 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two day ago you said you understood that you had to wait at least six months before an unblock would even be considered. Your "request" is preposterous and will make it more difficult for you to ever get unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I was coming from the unprecedented event like the COVID-19 pandemic and how it should be updated daily to reflect the current pandemic situation in each country. I was serious about myself waiting six months before I edit again but I thought you could still request access to edit certain pages (mainly created by the blocked editor) as long as editing is done in good faith, but this is clearly not the case. Thus I won’t request anything else here to comply with my blocking terms. Thanks for your reply. Javito1993 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socking since unblock requests

Socks include BEWD2000 (talk · contribs), CurtisYou (talk · contribs), and Zoey2003 (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request May 2022

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).

Javito1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here I’m requesting the unblock of my user account. I damaged the English Wikipedia in the past year by violating the Wikipedia socking policy multiple times and for that I feel terribly sorry. My actions had bad consequences and distressed many Wikipedia users which I now regret. In particular, the distress I caused produced unnecessary edit warring between users, damaged the quality of some articles, and inflicted stress on administrators that had to chase down my socks instead of performing other more important duties in Wikipedia. I have now learnt my lesson and feel I can contribute with good intentions to the encyclopaedia, promising I won’t commit sock puppetting ever again. To demonstrate the veracity of my redemption and my commitment to Wikipedia, I have extensively contributed in the past six months to the Spanish Wikipedia. For example, I have created more than six pages in this Wikipedia project and have contributed to it with more than 16,000 edits. In the English Wikipedia, I plan to maintain the same line of collaborations as in the Spanish Wikipedia with an emphasis in topics related to epidemiology, virology and mythology. I hope these words are convincing enough for an unblock and would be glad to be back again in the English Wikipedia if administrators consider I’m worth of the project. Javito1993 (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A CheckUser has just confirmed that you were socking no less than 2 weeks ago. This request is disingenuous, as you have been continuing to sock, even after posting this request. Furthermore, due to your repeated socking after your initial indefinite block, you are hereby banned from Wikipedia, per WP:3X. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 18 May 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.

For the reviewing admin, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on checkuser data. I'm not ruling it out, but I don't see any so this should count in favour. --Yamla (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this @Yamla:. Javito1993 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: do you think there is a chance this request will be considered? Thanks. Javito1993 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a slim chance. PhilKnight (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: thanks for your reply. Javito1993 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given what I can only call a long history of dishonesty, egregious misunderstanding, and poor communication, I would be unwilling to review this personally as a sole unblock. However, there's nothing in this unblock that would warrant a direct refusal, so I am inclined to suggest we send it to WP:AN. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: thanks for your reply to this request. I understand there won’t be words or even actions that can mend my troubled attitude and behaviour in the past. However, I believe people should be given second chances to show they have learnt their lesson and are capable of following the rules after they learn their lesson. My attitude towards Wikipedia is now coming from a mature and responsible user who understands how Wikipedia governs itself and what good contributors do for the growth of the encyclopaedia. I agree to take my request to WP:AN. I just hope it is not too late for a second chance. Javito1993 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: do you think my request can still be considered for a WP:AN resolution? Thanks. Javito1993 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Philknight seems to share my "slim chance" perspective, that would seem reasonable. Would you like me to transcribe your current appeal, or write an amended one? Nosebagbear (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: thank you so much for volunteering to have this request viewed by other administrators. I think transcribing as it is would be fine. Thanks a lot. Javito1993 (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: thanks again for your support with my unblock request. Do you think a submission on my case will be made soon to WP:AN? Javito1993 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why your ping above didn't trigger for me, but I'll submit it now Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help! Javito1993 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]