User talk:Cid Campeador

Hello Cid Campeador! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoi khoi 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Neville Longbottom

I explained why I removed the eye-colour - source? If he has green eyes, cite it. If not, don't add it. Michaelsanders 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

Excuse me but why did you blank the ISBNs from the Goku article? See your edit. I took this as vandalism and undid it. Maybe you could give a reason? Lord Sesshomaru 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Cid, I have recently reverted a few of your edits. As you know, Wikipedia editors are supposed to assume that others are acting in good faith. I believe your edits were in good faith - but I worry that you are not assuming the good faith or sense of other editors. In some cases, you deleted unsourced material. It is right to question unsourced material, especially if you have good reason to think it is wrong. But you also need to be fair to whoever added that material. My suggestion is that instead of deleting what you consider questionable material, do these two things. First, add this template in the article: ^{[citation needed]} Second, post something on the talk page - explain why you doubt the claim made by the article and ask if anyone can provide a source. When I do this I wait about six months, then if no one has added a source, I can delete it with a clear conscious.

Other times you have changed material in a way that seems to represent your own point of view. I am sure you know that editors should never put their own points of view into articles. My concern is that some of your edits violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. When you think the article is providing only one point of view, you should never delete or change that part of the article. What you should do is make sure that the point of view is correctly identified (in other words, "who believes this?") If the article does not explain who believes this, it is entirely fair of you to post to the talk page a request that the point of view be identified. There are also a number of templates you can add to that part of the article:

^{[dubious – discuss]}
^{[verification needed]}

Again, the point is to ask other editors to help solve the problem, and to give others time to try to resolve it. Again, I think it is fair to add a warning emplate and a message to the talk page and if after six months no one has responded, then to delete.

Finally, if you feel that an article represents only one point of view and there are other points of view, do not delete the one point of view. Instead, try to find reliable, verifiable sources (see WP:V and WP:RS and add other points of view. This will make the article more complete and balanced. The key point: instead of deleting something you do not like, add more sourced and verifiable material for the points of view you think are missing.

I know I am asking you to put a little more effort (and patience) into these things but the result will be that more of your edits last and make a real contribution to the project. I think you want WIkipedia to be more fair and more accurate. That's great, but understand that others who have worked on articles have the same motives. When editors have a difference of opinion, using these templates to flag material for discussion, and explaining your concerns on the talk page, is a way to work with others and build a consensus for a change. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC) ly 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at El Clásico. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Q ^{T C} 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

84.79.205.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Cid Campeador". The reason given for Cid Campeador's block is: "Edit warring".

Blocking administrator: OverlordQ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Yes, that's your block. Not an autoblock, but a direct block on your account. If you tried to log off, you'll have discovered that we'd prefer you not to edit until your block ends. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic

I only wanted that the wikipedia was stopping counting(telling) lies, please!. I never committed an alone act of vandalism, which I did was to eliminate the lines that descrbían to Royal(Real) Madrid like a club representative of the conservatism and the centralism, because it is WHAT IS ROYAL(REAL). They have not blocked me to anticipate(prepare), have blocked me for PUNISHMENT, for being an idealist who defends his(her,your) equipment(team) before false accusations. Also I must say that Royal(Real) Madrid and the city of Madrid might tackle legal actions(shares) for feeling defamed, thanks to this article of the wikipedia.

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).

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

Request reason:

See "this is pathetic"

Decline reason:

I'm trying but I really don't understand what you were trying to do with the article. But regardless, you weren't blocked for the contents of your edit, you're blocked for your conduct. Mango juice^talk 23:10, 8 July 2009 (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.

Please note WP:LEGAL -- by making legal threats on the wiki, you guarantee that administrators will block you from editing until such time as those threats are resolved or withdrawn. Obviously we cannot prevent you from taking legal action, nor do we intend to, but we do ask that any user engaging in or seriously considering relevant legal action refrain from editing the wiki while those matters are ongoing. In short: you can edit or sue, but not both at once. This is intended to keep legal matters in legal channels, where they belong. If you wish to continue pursuing this, please see Wikipedia:Contact us; if you wish to continue editing, please withdraw the legal threat. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

I have not said that Im personally going to take legal actions against wikipedia, I have said that the city of Madrid and Real Madrid could to do it if they were discovering this article of the one that presumes to be the most prestigious encyclopedia on the internet. It(he) is obvious for the disqualifications and prejudices of scanty foundation that are observed in the article " El Clasico ". On the other hand, if to have 2 Wikipedia's accounts(bills) is a motive for an eternal blockade, I am really worried, seeing the contributions I have made for many articles.

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).

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

Request reason:

See sections "this is pathetic" and "threats"

Decline reason:

Neither of these address your use of multiple accounts. Blueboy 96 20:26, 10 July 2009 (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.

Wikpedi's blocking policy

The previous user has said that I was blocked by my conduct. Do not they say the procedure of wikipedia that it(he,she) is blocked for anticipating(preparing) and not to punish?

So far, all of your requests for unblocking have been, in essence, that you should be unblocked because other editors have behaved wrongly. Is there anything about your editing that you would be changing if unblocked, or will it be the same as your edit history shows? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editions were destined to eliminate the prejudices and perceptions without foundation that they were writing to themselves in the artíulo " The Classic one ". The certainn thing is that in the Wikipedia Española " Culture of the Rivalry " had been eliminated for committing an outrage against the putno of neutral sight of the encyclopedia. There are used a few references of the web of "The Guardian" to justify the written paragraphs. The afirmaiones of the Guardian on the iudad of Madrid and Royal(Real) Madrid are clearly debatable and partial: one affirms that the " modern clothes " and " the socialism " was imported to Madrid and the rest of Spain by the Catalans (???????????????) and that the city of Madrid represnta to the eyes of the world " the centralist conservative forces "Cid Campeador (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue...

Having two accounts(bills) is NOT a motive for a permanent block according to THE POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA's BLOCKADE. If you dont know it, you should read it, because you have the power to block. The block in wikipedia is used to prevent, not to punish. In my case it has been said to me that I have been blocked because I have been punished!!!

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).

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

Request reason:

Read all the sections of my talk page

Decline reason:

This is not a valid unblock request. You need to provide, in your unblock request, a valid and convincing reason why you should be unblocked. I suggest you read WP:GAB and try again. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (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's only fair to tell you that you don't get to request unblock an infinite number of times. We try to give your request a fair review, but if more than three people review your request, the fourth one will generally feel that your block has been fairly reviewed and remove your ability to edit your talk page. People who use duplicate accounts aren't generally unblocked in any case- pretending to be someone else is lying, and once you've told lies, admins tend not to believe anything else you say. But if you want to add anything that would convince an administrator that unblocking you is likely to be good for the encyclopedia, this would be a good time, because your talk page is likely to be closed soon. One way to show that your main goal is the good of the encyclopedia is to make a promise to avoid the subject of Hungary and Romania completely in the future; I can't promise that would work, but it would show that you aren't only here to push your own point of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been hurt very much from that blockade. I am charmed with the encyclopedias. Since wikipedia began I used it without rest. And I have contributed as user big quantities of information to many articles. But then came "El Clasico". In the article were offences (and still are the offences) against the city of Madrid, and Real Madrid, and absurd presuppositions are enunciated. Before that injustice, I prepared to eliminate the slanderous parts of the article towards the club of football and the city. But I met the aggressive response of agrgresive users ready to restablish the disqualifications to the city and to the club. Behind these users there is an evident political interest. In the talk pages of them they were defined as separatist Catalans. I was blocked as punishment because my insistence for erasing the defamations. That is to say, the blockade was a consequence of a punishment. Something that does not fit with the policy of blockade of Wikipedia. I have asked for my unblock but nobody has had the courage of doing it for fear of appering weak to other administrators. Ill maybe have to resign and leave Wikipedia. It seems that will happen. Without having committed an alone act of vandalism. This is directed to all that have bothered my illusion of belonging to the biggest encyclopedia of Internet: Vencereis, pero no convencereis. (You will win but you wont convince). You will win because you have the power to block myself and to write that Madrid represents the fascism. But you will not convince, because to convince means to persuade. And to persuade you need something that you lack: reason and right in your acts. It seems to me to be useless to ask you to think about the illusion that always I have had of belonging to Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You were blocked, briefly, for edit warring. You compounded that error by using an alternate account to evade that block. None of your unblock request addresses either of these behaviors on your part; hence, you will not be unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:07, 11 July 2009 (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.

{unblock|Vencereis, pero no convencereis. (You will win but you wont convince). You will win because you have the power to block myself and to write that Madrid represents the fascism. But you will not convince, because to convince means to persuade. And to persuade you need something that you lack: reason and right in your acts. It seems to me to be useless to ask you to think about the illusion that always I have had of belonging to Wikipedia}}

Your request for a review of your block has concluded; you've had five different administrators review your block. It isn't useful for a sixth to review it, especially as your sixth request is not significantly different, so I have disabled your ability to edit this talk page further. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]