User talk:Filiprino

23:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." for a reason, and I marked it as such for a reason; please respect that and refrain from further commentary there. Reiterating your point over and over again is not going to get it accepted, and the other editors were beginning to lose their patience for that behavior. This is not a productive use of time, so I marked it as closed. You can believe what you want, but on this project, consensus is the ultimate rule, and you have to respect that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the believers here. Consensus? Bullshit. A consensus among a group of suckers is not consensus. You can enjoy Donald Trump the most, the rest of the world is congratulated by your consensus. Filiprino (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think that

WP:AXE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You are the ones not standing the heat. And you are the ones throwing the red herring. If not, I do not understand why you are still answering my comments. Filiprino (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Filiprino. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your insistence on canvassing in your userspace. The thread is Inappropriate userspace content?. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at User:Filiprino/sandbox. —JJBers 22:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am terrified. Filiprino (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice snarky response. —JJBers 22:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A responsible answer from an all mighty Wikipedia editor. Filiprino (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tabarnia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tabarnia, you may be blocked from editing.

Wikipedia is a serious project. People who use it for political propaganda do great harm to the project. I suggest any proposed edits you discuss in talk page, obtain wide consensus. Otherwise you should be reverted and eventually topic banned. I see in talk page of one page you have already stated your intention to "censor" the page because of your political views. This is not acceptable. Gracias. 79.159.80.28 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is because you say so, but that does not mean it is true. The fact is that you are reverting an article without further discussion to a previous state from the status quo. Filiprino (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Described by association and probable original research.The discussion is about the topic Tabarnia. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Societat Civil Catalana. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Recently I have been working on topics related to

WP:3RRNO point 4). I should simply had to have stopped reversion before and seek for dispute resolution. I suppose that is the next step to do. Filiprino (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Accept reason:

Unblocked per agreement below. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; if you agree to stop edit warring, discuss the matter on the article talk page, and use

That is what I would do because nobody answers anything in the talk page. And even if someone answered it would lead no nothing because there is no possible consensus to achieve between two users. As a matter of fact, the conflicting user has not answered any of my arguments. Filiprino (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to 0RR on all pages on the English Wikipedia for the next 72 hours, I will lift your block. For clarity, 0RR means that you will not make any reverts to any page for any reason (

WP:3RRNO applies, but given that you seem to be having issues with it, I'd just stick with don't revert and let someone else handle it.) If you are fine with these terms, I don't have an objection to you being unblocked by another administrator or myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

All-right, 72h no revert. Filiprino (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've unblocked you per your agreement here. Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you again, this time for 72 hours, because you violated your unblock conditions of 0RR with this edit, which reverted text added to the article with this edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni Why is the increase in time? Can't you block for another 24 hours? How much time has to pass in order to go back to 24h blocking? Filiprino (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The increase in time is because you went straight back to the same page to continue edit warring after you were unblocked on the condition that you make no reverts (0RR). A longer time is needed because you've shown that you don't intend to follow the unblock conditions, even for a relatively short period of time. I've made the block match the length that the unblock conditions were supposed to last. You are free to appeal this block using the instruction in the template above, and another administrator will review the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I edited the page because I did not consider it would be edit warring. I have made other edits in Somatemps corroborating the information in Societat Civil Catalana. But other editors simply don't want to read or follow links. It is not suitable to replicate the material in multiple articles. Filiprino (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to a discussion about your war editions. Here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Edit_wars_in_Tabarnia_artcles_and_related--ILoveCaracas (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tabarnia. 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Miaow 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the consensus was already reached. User "ILoveCaracas" seems to be trolling or something. He added a section to the Village Pump where I explained my edits but he kept ignoring me. He did not know what is archive.org, confusing it with a fake website impersonating "El Triangle" (www.eltriangle.eu), making a lengthy statement based on that. And more and more ad hominem fallacies. Filiprino (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensuos is ongoing. I suggest you to stop edit warring, please. --Miaow 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus at all. Nobody is discussing anything in the talk page. The article is frozen

disruptive editing... Filiprino (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]