User talk:Chacelí

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of peace activists, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting identical text in a range of broadly related articles. The text does not even make sense in the articles where you've put it - the paragraph starts with "In this sense [...]" but "this sense" does not appear to refer to anything in the articles you've added the text to! Please be careful to add only information that is directly related to the article you edit, and don't add personal commentary such as "this is very interesting". Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Solidarity Day

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Human Solidarity Day, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://us.resqme.com/international-human-solidarity-day/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of International Human Solidarity Day

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International Human Solidarity Day requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.academia.edu/9828049/Global_Education_Magazine_International_Human_Solidarity_Day. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 02:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big History and Collado

Hi!

I've noticed that over a few months you keep adding content about Collado's approach to Big History. I think his approach is great, but we really need secondary sources that document and contextualize his contribution. If you can find some sources which connect his work to the overall topic of Big History that are not authored solely by him, that would help us write about this new approach. If there aren't sources like that, I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to write about this yet.

jps (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thank you very much for your inspiring message.

Actually, this author has written more than 15 scopus articles on this topic. This mean his research speaks for itself at international level. here it is the real spirit of wikipedia: inform readers about different points of view, without epistemological bias.

According to the official website of the own International Big History Association, he was confered with a public recognition because his promenency research on Big History in Latinamerica:

https://bighistory.org/13482-2/

https://javiercolladoruano.com/awards/

On the other hand, when you just look for "big history transdisciplinary" on scholar google, you can discover other researchers who have written about the same topic or have quoted him: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=big+history+transdisciplinary&btnG=

Maybe now it is more clear and we can share ideas from the second generation of Big Historians, that emerge from the epistemologies of the south.

with gratitude Chacelí (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]