User talk:David C. S.

Welcome!

Hello, David C. S., and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

You seem determined to post a particular version of a table on the

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Can you please take a look at the adjustments I made to some templates that you have recently created? We are trying to keep obsolete tags like <font>...</font> and <center>...</center> out of template space. If you create additional templates, please copy the format from the ones that have been fixed, instead of from your previous code. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (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 Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis, you may be blocked from editing. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop at your imposition edits.

Dear @David C. S.ː I copy and adapt this message that was placed on your discussion page on Wikipedia in Spanish, so that there is a record of the situation that happens and you generate. Some users of Wikipedia in Spanish [1] gave their point of view and see that it is not correct that you use Wikipedia as a social network to go changing photos because you please. It is seen that you are trying to force this photograph, taking into account that in Wikipedia in Spanish you are trying to do it at all costs under political ideals (which are prohibited in Wikipedia) the presidential photograph of Evo Morales, and accusing all those who are against you and wanting to force Librarians to block us because we don't think the same as you, which doesn't seem right at all to me. The photographs must agree with the context, obviously in an article such as President of Bolivia or Vice President of Bolivia, or it is the same article by Evo Morales, the photo you are trying to place works, but in others it does not. Please, I'm going to ask you to stop pushing this way and more by turning to other language Wikipedias like this to do the same thing, so please stop. Don't use Wikipedia as a political battlefield. Greetings. P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will join this message to point out that you have continued with the behavior despite repeated messages and warnings. I will proceed to file a complaint if this continues. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map that you have included in your last changes has had its accuracy disputed. These reasons have been explained to you, your edits have been challenged in multiple wikis now, and you have blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia and in Wikimedia Commons for similar reasons, so you are well aware of this by now. Please, unless you're willing to engage in meaningful discussion, do not bring this dispute here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David C. S. I'm a little late coming with this warning, but it's important to put it on the record. Is it that you don't understand or what? It was already explained to you previously that you stop insisting on your acts of vandalism and that they press with ideological overtones that are prohibited on Wikipedia. Stop using Wikipedia as your playground, which it is not. Your edits in the Bolivian General Elections articles of 2014 and 2019 have already been reversed, and I hope they do not need to be redone. --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (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 Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis, you may be blocked from editing. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Accusing other editors of attempting to censor content only casts aspersions. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David C. S.: Just to let you know that an editor is trying to get all of the political userboxes deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I am sending you this message since you created some of them. Catfurball (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at 2023 Ecuadorian general election. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Number 57 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. You have repeatedly added or reinstated false information to the 2023 Ecuadorian general election article (you repeatedly reinstated a poll claimed to be from 3 July sourced to here, which presents different data, specifically that of the 24 June poll), and misled other editors to get Dirceu Mag blocked. I've no idea why you are doing this, but I have now blocked you from editing the article to stop you continuing this. Number 57 13:06, 21 July 2023 (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).

David C. S. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Good afternoon, to whom it corresponds to attend to this request. It is really outrageous that an administrator like @Number 57 lends himself to supporting the actions of a SPA, which acts aggressively, making use of multiple IPs (which suggests that it is not a simple vandal, but that there really is a sabotage campaign, carried out by a subject with knowledge of the facts). This problem arises when an individual began to edit the poll data for the 2023 Ecuadorian general elections. Each poll I uploaded has been backed up with its respective reference. Being my Spanish-speaking country, logically all the references are in Spanish. Here's the first problem, since I've noticed that people who don't know the language can misinterpret those references (as apparently happens with @Number 57). This administrator has blocked me, claiming that I upload false information, something that is a lie, specifically referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Ecuadorian_general_election&diff=1166422703&oldid=1166413516 this part, where it says that said poll (July 3) is the same as the previous poll (June 24). This is false, I attach evidence that both surveys are different: survey June 24 ([2][3][4]) survey July 3 ([5]). And it is the same with the rest of the allegations used by the subject behind the SPAs and IPs involved in this conflict, he cannot or does not want to correctly interpret the data of the references (I repeat, they are all in Spanish). It is unfortunate that administrators, like @Number 57, instead of supporting the quality of the edition, and helping a user who has been here for more than 10 years, do the opposite, helping subjects like that SPA, and advocating for him[6] before @Lourdes, the librarian who blocked him for the second time. Because it is a SPA in view of anyone: it has come here only to manipulate that data, it has no other function here. This subject even called the librarian who blocked him for the same reason on the Spanish Wikipedia an “accomplice”. What more evidence do you need to see that it is a SPA with clear interests? The fact that I have been blocked for preventing that sabotage is a supreme injustice. If you need more references about the surveys, or something similar, please, unblock me, I will gladly show them to you. David C. S. (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't reallly admit to your mistakes here. We don't need an apology, just an admission of what happened. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2023 (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.

It was made clear to you repeatedly that the 3 July poll data did not match the source (and why it was being removed). Why did you not provide a correct source until now, but instead reinstated the poll with an incorrect source numerous times? Your knee jerk reverts of Diceau Mag without considering the validity of their edits is the root cause of the issue here. Number 57 00:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False statement, here is the evidence [7]. Apparently, they want to pass off the subject of that survey as a scapegoat to block me and defend the SPA. The conflict started long before, as everyone can see from the history. Initially there was another reference for that survey, but since it was questioned, I precisely put another one [8]. I am not the only user who has corrected the inaccuracies of the SPA, this can also be seen in the history. Should I start arguing with a SPA? It would be of no use, this subject, as everyone can see, is obstinate with modifying the page, going over anyone who meddles. I admit that I have made mistakes, due to so many reversions per day, carried out by the SPA, in addition to the fact that I am not fluent in English. However, I am willing to correct them, as long as it is done between users without conflicts of interest, like that SPA.. -- David C. S. (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a false statement. Again, you repeatedly reinserted a poll supposedly from 3 July 2023, which was sourced to this page, which does not give the polling data claimed. It's nothing to do with language or interpretation. Now you have provided a source that supports the poll being added, but oddly refuse to admit you used the wrong source. Dirceau Mag was quite correct to point out the data you were adding is wrong. It's a shame you refuse to admit your (multiple) mistakes and instead attack the editor who spotted them. Number 57 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]