User talk:Cocoliras
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why are you making changes without reaching a consensus from all the parts.. ?? --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] please wait before you make changes
1. please wait before you make changes so we all can decide, making changes without a consensus will be followed for a revert in your edits.--Cap. Mitchel (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. please create your own user page so there will be no missunderstanding about sockpuppetry and/or vandalism, show to everybody who you are and that way everything is all clear.--Cap. Mitchel (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppetry case
 |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cocoliras for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. the Dúnadan 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stop edit warring
From your edits, you have a history of persistently including edits that add no value in certain sites. Please refrain from trying to force your edits in the Panama City page. The edit that you are trying to force does not belong in the introduction of the article. It seems that you are trying to make the article look more as an advertisement, instead of an encyclopedia--Schonbrunn (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to North America. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. A consensus was achieved at talk:North America, verified by credible sources, that your edits exclude. Also of note, your self-reference to other large central American cities is not acceptable per policy.
Please take this up in discussion instead of edit warring, for which you have been warned numerous times of. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I though that we reached a consensus, I left the message which no one responded, I do agreed with them and left them the message saying what would I do. There's nothing bad about it, if you are against those changes discuss them. But please, do as soon as you can cause I really need to do this quick. Cocoliras (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- No, nothing terribly wrong with it, except that it isn't relevant to the North America article, given that it is mentioned in the page that you linked to. The article mentions the largest cities according to reliable sources, of which none are mentioned in central America.
- And why do you need to do this quick? There needs to be consensus and discussion, which can take time and shouldn't be rushed under any circumstances. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please revert to the last edit at North America, as you have reverted five times:17:55, 8 January 2008, 13:59, 9 January 2008, 14:38, 9 January 2008, 14:57, 9 January 2008, and 15:22, 9 January 2008. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it now has a citation that redirects into a reliable source. If that is what you wanted?, if you need me to do another thing, contact me, and forget about that quick thing, its already done. Cocoliras (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not a reliable source. You have also edit warred and violated WP:3RR, for which you have been notified of previously. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Gwernol 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Panama City
Stop adding unsourced and irrelevant information in Panama City. You are not contributing to the article by adding information that is not properly sourced--Schonbrunn (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have conducted three reverts or more, and may be violating WP:3RR for your edits. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just for reference: 01:21, 12 January 2008 22:54, 11 January 2008 16:16, 11 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs)
- You have been reported to 3RR again, which can be viewed here. I highly suggest that you stop edit warring and discuss your proposed edits on the talk page, for which you have no consensus towards. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Gwernol 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Cocoliras, please stop trying to force your particular edits into the North America article. It is obvious that you don't have consensus for your proposed changes. Continuing to edit war over this has become disruptive. I have given you an extended block. Please note that when your block expires, you may not immediately start reverting in your change again. You must obtain a valid consensus for these changes; given the current opposition you are going to need to modify your proposed change in order to achieve that. If you continue to revert in your change without consensus you will be blocked on sight for disruption.
Please take the next week to calm down and seek a better approach to your editing. Thanks, Gwernol 23:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Not surprisingly, after your block for edit warring at North America, where you were trying to force additions without consensus or even discussion, you have begin anew with the same edits. I will not hesitate to recommend another block if this continues; please seek discussion and if there is consensus, let another editor add in the proposed changes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please Cocoliras, stop re-inserting your disputed edits into North America. The hatnote you are using is clearly not appropriate, per WP:HATNOTE. It is also disruptive for you to continue to edit war on this article. You are about to be blocked again for disruption. Please stop, please abide by Wikipedia's rules. Thanks, Gwernol 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Regarding the hatnote: the opening paragraph of the article already describes the content of the article. There is no compelling reason to repeat that information elsewhere, that I can see. As for the link, there are two problems. First, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources that you can use in the North America article. The other is that, as you have noticed ("I tried to explain everyone, but without success") you do not have consensus for your change. Given your history of editing, you seem to be determined to push your own point of view into articles, including North America. This is not the way Wikipedia works. For controversial edits, which yours clearly are, you cannot just continue adding your opinions to articles when others disagree with you. Until you have consensus your edits are extremely disruptive.
- I was very clear after your last block that you should not immediately reinsert the same edits once your block expired. Yet you immediately reinserted those edits. Please stop editing that article. If you continue to insert disputed edits to North America you will be blocked for a much longer period. Thanks, Gwernol 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just FYI
The usual custom is to post new comments to the bottom of user talk pages. It's not a big deal or anything, but it's a best practice, and your comments may on occasion be otherwise accidentally overlooked. WilyD 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have completed three reverts for 21 January 2008. Please cease edit warring. You wanted my opinion, and now you have it. Again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] North America
Hi there, send me your email address to here: Emailuser/Jcmenal JC 21 Jan 2008 15:15 (PST)
[edit] CIA data
Hi, I'm sorry you feel that way about the CIA data. Unfortunately, that's your opinion and it's not going to be shared by everyone. The point of the map I made is to represent the data that the CIA website released. Whether or not their info is factually correct is not relevant, what's important is consistency. People need to be able to check the data on the map and compare it to the CIA website. If you want to make a map representing UN data, or various other sources, then feel free to do so, but please don't break the consistency of the CIA map. Thanks! Sbw01f (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. Please don't clone my map and claim authorship, that's rather dishonest. Further, there is no need for a second map on that article with only two differing countries - that only brings down the quality of the article. The map is a representation of one source, and that point is made extremely clear in the note below. Anyone who wants to see the UN data or any other alternative source can easily do so by scrolling down and looking at the various tables. I understand that some people don't like seeing what they perceive as false information in various wikipedia maps, but you must understand that your opinion doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's, and you shouldn't edit articles to reflect your own personal point of view (regarding the validity of the CIA data, in this case). The CIA factbook is seen as a reliable source by most people, and while you are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to change statistical articles based on your lone opinion.
- Thank you for your understanding. I assure you that as soon as Brazil and Puerto Rico are updated on the CIA website I'll update the map asap. Sbw01f (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Percent poverty world map 2008.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Percent poverty world map 2008.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sbw01f (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
