User talk:Diplomatiko

native name

In the "native name" field, the name in the local language should go first. (I have no comment in the other edits that you did, maybe I'll look at them later). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

On maps

Hi there, Diplomatiko! I want to salute (I must do it English, according to Wikipedia policies) your contributions to the entries related to the wikiproject I work in. About possible changes on the maps for autonomous communities, there is an ongoing discussion here, where you are invited to join and provide rationale for your proposal. Cheers! --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

About your comment in Spanish in a summary edit "ten por seguro que en este tema no voy a ceder, así que no insistas" (my translation: "be advised that regarding this issue I'll never surrender, so you'd better give up"), let me give you a word of advice: (1) per WP:Talk you should always post your comments in English, to let all users understand them, and (2) wikipedia is built through dialogue and consensus, not by single users taking unilateral decisions (see WP:Consensus). You are new to wikipedia and are still probably not aware of some policies, so I don't assume any bad faith in that. Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Spain talk page

Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:Spain#Images which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

--Milkrawler (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate of Spain

Please, stop your vandalism like you did at the page Spain. Your map is an original research (there is no continental climate in Spain). Furthermore, you have deleted sourced contributions and academic references. If you want to discuss about it, please use the talk page. --Milkrawler (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could I suggest that once it becomes clear there's some rationale for something on a page (i.e. when you get reverted) you resort to the talk page before engaging in a futile edit war? It's a lot more constructive and wastes less time for everyone. Edit summaries aren't that great for explaining rationales. Thanks Akerbeltz (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ceuta

You seem to be making a large amount of edits at once. An objection to just one part of that can make the whole edit liable to be reverted by someone. Why not break up the change over multiple edits, perhaps one per level 2 section? This would mean an objection to one thing would not result in everything you do being reverted :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Basque Country (autonomous community). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

Because you have seen fit to evade your block using 79.155.229.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the block has been reset to 24 hours starting now. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)