User talk:EzequielBelaus

Welcome!

Hello, EzequielBelaus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Glad to see you here; this will make things a lot easier, both for you, and those wishing to communicate with you. Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding articles to work on

Hi Ezequiel, ¿cómo sos vos? One way of finding interesting articles to work on, is to browse some of the WikiProjects on topics you are interested in. There's a search box on that page to search for projects, or you can browse the directory. There are also links to lists of projects, like this alphabetical list. For example, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina. If you go to the "To do" or "Requested articles" tab, you'll see plenty of things that need doing. At the latter, for example, I see that Spanish language Wikipedia has an article, es:Revolución del 11 de septiembre de 1852, but we don't have that one in en-wiki. Would it interest you to create one? If it would, I could create a framework for you, basically, create an almost empty page with some of the main section headers, like "References", and "See also" and so on, and then you could just fill in the text of the article, either translating or adding new material with references, if you felt like it. If that article doesn't appeal, there are so many others in that list. And if writing about an entirely different subject area would be more interesting, check out the WikiProjects on topics you like, I don't know, what about WikiProject Football, WikiProject Visual Arts, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Military history, or WikiProject Music; or see the lists here and here. Also, there are more possibilities at the project Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English; some of the pages there need editors who are bilingual in Spanish. There are other ways, too, but thought I'd leave you with this first, to see what you think. Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Hello there. Fist off: the verb "to be" has two meanings in Spanish: "ser" y "estar". "Ser" is, for example, for professions: "soy músico", and for stable characteristics or personality traits: "soy bello", "soy impaciente". "Estar" is for spacial locations: "estoy aquí", and for asking about the current state of someone. So, your polite greeting is "¿cómo estás?".

The article about Revolución del 11 de Septiembre is something that I'd be interested in translating. We could start with that. And maybe the Project manga could interest me, maybe I could add information about Saint Seiya, which is a manga that isn't featured too much in English-speaking communities.

To answer the question in the former talk page: if by "lumfardo" you mean Buenos Aires slang, yes, I know quite a few words. And it's "lunfardo" with an "n". Also, you said "conoces". The verb "to know" has two meanings in Spanish. "Conocer" is associated with things, places or people: "¿Conoces a mi hermana?" "¿Conoces Estados Unidos?". "Saber" is for knowledge: "¿sabes lunfardo?" "¿Sabes armonía?". It's like "connaître" and "savoir" in French.

Ummm... well, there is all the other stuff about HIV. I was topic banned so that's the main reason I can't post what I talked to you about, but if you feel like giving me your opinion, in that Talk page or here, you are welcome. I kept researching the Archives in the HIV denialism Talk page, and I kind of found confirmation to my hypothesis. EzequielBelaus (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel.[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm excited to be working with you on the 1852 Revolution article. That is its own topic, so I'll open a separate thread about that below, to keep it distinct from this one. More about Manga, and other topics later. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an article

Regarding the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Revolución del 11 de septiembre de 1852 that we talked about above: starting an article from scratch is harder than modifying an existing one, so to jump-start you, I'm going to set up a bare-bones article framework that you can modify. Before even doing that, the very first thing we have to do is to make sure the article doesn't already exist at en-wiki, because it would be a shame to duplicate effort for nothing. The next thing, is to figure out what to call the English article, which is not necessarily just a translation of the Spanish article title; rather, the way historical events are called in different languages may differ. The guideline WP:TITLE governs this, and as with most things, the title wording must conform to what reliable sources call it in English, regardless of what it is called in Spanish or some other language. While I'm creating the stub, maybe you could have a look at the information page "Wikipedia:Article development". I should have your article skeleton ready for you today; stay tuned.

By the way: this can work in both directions: that is, you could create a Spanish article. Es-wiki (1.5 million articles) is much smaller than en-wiki (5.6M), and if you want, we could find you an interesting article here on en-wiki that either doesn't exist or is much shorter in the Spanish version; and then you could work on creating or expanding the Spanish one. So keep that in mind as a possibility as well. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... yeah, I'm sure there are literally millions of such articles in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'll read the two Guidelines pages you sent me for the time being.

About the article: I checked in Juan Manuel de Rosas' and Justo José de Urquiza's biographies, and the revolution isn't named as such. Historical and war events are mentioned, but no mention to the Revolution itself, so it's logical that the article doesn't exist. As for the title, the lead says that "a revolution or coup broke off". The title could be "Coup of September 11th, 1852". I think it's a matter of euphonics. It wouldn't be wrong to say "Revolution of September 11th, 1852" EzequielBelaus (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Hang in there, some stuff came up, so will be later today, or tonight. Feel free to ask questions though, about this or anything else; just {{ping}} me when you do. Mathglot (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ezequiel: Sorry it took so long; your article is here: Draft:Revolution of 11 September 1852. You're good to go to start working on it now. Feel free to ask aAny questions you have about how to do things on Wikipedia, here on your talk page, or on my talk page. Looking forward to your edits on this article! (In researching it, I found a few more articles that don't exist on en-wiki yet, but let's do one at a time.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I see you've started in on it. How would you like to collaborate on this? My idea was, that I'll concentrate on structure: adding wikilinks, some source references, and other page-structure details like the Infobox, and let you concentrate on the actual content—what the article has to say about the revolution. But it doesn't have to be that way, and I'm open to your suggestions also. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely the best way. You know the protocols of this site, and I know the language. EzequielBelaus (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Vaya, ¡que bueno! En adelante...

Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: All done. Oh, and if you mean "Go ahead", you just say "adelante". I kind of enjoyed doing this. EzequielBelaus (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Me, too! (Although my part is not quite done, yet.) Shall we do another one? For the next one, I'd like you to learn the very important step of adding citations (also known as, Footnotes), if you're willing. Shall we stick to the topic of Argentine history—which I'm enjoying, I just took four books out of the library on it—or would you like to change it up, and so something withe anime/manga, or something else? If you don't care what topic, then let's stick with the history for a while; I'm finding it very interesting, and learning a lot. But it's your call. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's something you can help with, while waiting for me to finish up this article. Namely, finding or creating in-links from other articles to this one, so people can find it. Otherwise, it will be an "orphan article", with no way to get here from the rest of Wikipedia; and if they can't get here, then nobody will see it or read it.So, in-links are important. If you go here: Draft talk:Revolution of 11 September 1852 you will find an article talk page. If you can find and add articles to the list I started in section Possible inlinks, that will help connect this article to the rest of Wikipedia so people will see it and read it. Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm.. adding citations is something that will consume more of my time, so I can't promise I will. We could stay with Argentine History - I learned many things too. I could work on Saint Seiya latter on.

About the in-links: How is it done? I should write new sentences on the articles, or is it a matter of adding links on the "Read also" section? For example: In Bartolomé Mitre article, in the section "President of Argentina", it would be "The civil war of 1859, after the revolt of Buenos Aires against Justo José de Urquiza's federal system, resulted in Mitre's defeat by Urquiza at the Battle of Cepeda.", adding the sentence you proposed. EzequielBelaus (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Edit conflicts

Hi Ezequiel,

Please read this advice carefully, as it will help you avoid the frustrating experience of Edit conflicts. I wanted to explain "edit conflicts" before it happens to you, so you'll recognize it and know how to handle it when it happens, and also how to avoid it. You can read more in detail about it here: Help:Edit conflict.

In brief, an Edit conflict is what happens when two people are both editing the same article at the same time, and then try to save it. Person A's edit will be saved, but not Person B's. When person B tries to save his edit, he will be unable to, because it would wipe out the change just saved by person A.

The Wikimedia software that runs Wikipedia is able to recognize this situation, and will put up a big, pink, warning message to person B when they hit "Publish" button announcing an Edit Conflict. The key thing is, DON'T PANIC! None of your data is lost, but make sure you don't kill the browser, or the tab, or hit the back button. Everything you wrote is still there, you just have to follow the instructions on the pink warning page, to recover your new changes, and save them. Sometimes, following those instructions for the very first time can be frustrating, and take some time, but it gets easier. It's not a bad idea to write or copy your new content to a text-editing program offline (or to your User Sandbox) before you click "Publish", so that if you run into an edit conflict and are not sure how to recover from it, at least you have a copy of the text you wrote, and can reapply it later.

Now, there is a way to reduce the risk of edit conflicts, anytime you might be editing an article at the same time as someone else. The first thing to do, is always edit one section at a time, and use the little [edit] link next to the section header. If you are editing section "ABC" while someone else is editing section "DEF", there is no conflict, and you can both SAVE at the same time. But, if you use the "Edit" tab all the way at the top of the page (between "Read" and "View history"), then you risk running into an edit conflict, so don't do that. I can see from the revision history, that you did most of your earlier edits as section edits in using the little [edit] links, but today you made three large edits using the "Edit" tab at the top—that is riskier, try to avoid doing that.

What about if you are doing a section edit on section DEF, and another editor is also editing that section at the same time? Then the second person to hit "Publish" will definitely get an Edit conflict. You can't prevent this situation 100%, but you can make it very unlikely, if you add the {{in use|section}} right under the section header and SAVE it immediately, before you start editing the section. This lets other people know that you are busy with that section, and they should stay away. Here's an example of what it looks like after you save the "in use" template:

click to show example of "in use" section header

Run-up to revolution

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam a cursus metus, elementum porttitor dui. Integer quis cursus metus, bibendum blandit nulla. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Fusce in cursus justo. Maecenas in sagittis sem. Nulla vitae mauris et odio euismod volutpat. Vivamus maximus nisl quam, vitae tempor libero faucibus a. Suspendisse lacinia ut justo et pretium. Aliquam odio orci, accumsan et pellentesque posuere, pellentesque sed tortor. Mauris bibendum in magna quis viverra. Cras purus sem, dictum a lorem ac, egestas interdum nulla.

So, my recommendations for editing on this article (or any article where you might get a conflict, are:

Use the little section [edit] links in the article; don't use the "Edit" tab at the top of the page
Before starting a major section addition, quickly edit the section, add {{in use|section}} right under the section header (must be at left margin, no spaces before), and quickly click "Publish".
Now click the [edit] link for the same section, and perform your normal edit, and "Publish" when done.
Don't forget to remove the "in use" template after you're done with that section.

Hope this helps; and you're doing great, keep it up! Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I typed that, it looks like you've still been adding content, using the "Edit" link at the top. I wanted to work on updating some of the sections you did yesterday, but I'm unable to now, or rather, I could do so but I'm afraid to, because if I edit and "save" before you do, you'll get blocked trying to publish your next change; and since you probably haven't read this explanation yet, you won't know what to do and might lose everything you typed. I don't want that to happen. So it looks like I won't be able to do anything today, or at least, not until you're asleep, or I might have to wait till tomorrow. Hopefully by tomorrow, you will have seen this, so I can continue to help you with the article during the day while you are editing, and not risk causing you an edit conflict. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I used the "In use" template in my latest edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzequielBelaus (talk • contribs) 22:28, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; that helped. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HIV denialism

This is a response to your comment on my Talk page (permalink) concerning HIV denialism. I have two remarks about this. First: on the one hand, I'm happy to discuss anything with you in principle, but the last thing I want to do is to do anything that might get you blocked. Because of your Topic ban related to all things HIV, I'm worried that even discussing it here might infringe the T-Ban, so let's not do that until we get some clarification about it. Your unblock at your IP user talk page (permalink) says that the ban applies to all such edits, no matter where and it's not completely clear to me whether that includes Talk pages. So, until we get clarity about this, I prefer not to answer your question for now, so as not to do anything that might get you blocked. You can check with the blocking admin for clarification about this on their Talk page, or maybe better, by {{ping}}ing them on the page where you were blocked and unblocked. If they say it's okay to discuss the topic on Talk pages, then in theory you're free to do so. But I'm not sure it would be a good idea.

Secondly: even if the admin says Talk pages discussions about it are okay, it's very clear that article page edits about the topic are off limits to you, and you agreed to that. So it's very concerning that on my Talk page you said, "Now: I intend to edit the HIV Denialism page with a link to a documentary." I'm not an admin, but in my opinion if you add that link you will immediately be blocked, possibly for a long time or even indefinitely. So please don't do that; we were doing so well with the Draft Argentina article and you could be a good editor.

I realize this whole topic area is a hot button issue for you, but because of Wikipedia's general rules about verifiability and sourcing, and even stricter rules about contentious areas like the one, I think you really just have to set aside your concerns about this at Wikipedia, because you'll end up permanently banned and it could happen very quickly. If you feel you can't hold yourself back from addressing this isue, there are other options open for you other than Wikipedia: see List of wikis for example.

Can we please just go back to editing articles about Argentine history, manga, or anything else you're interested in? I don't want to see you get blocked for good. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Christ's sake. If Wikipedia is so anal about certain things, the least you could do is not saying that Wikipedia is "free" or that "anybody can edit it", because it's untrue. If I want to talk about how HIV is fake and how censorship is enforced, even against reliable sources, in my own Talk Page, it shouldn't be a problem. EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Wikipedia is free, in the sense that you don't have to pay for it, and there isn't even commercial advertising, either. "Anyone can edit it" means you don't have to pay, or pass an entrance exam, or get prior approval to edit it. "Anyone can edit it" is not the same as, "anyone can say anything", and there are both legal limits (libel, copyright violation, etc.) as well as community limits (as decided and voted on by the community).

There is wider latitude to talk on your own Talk page per WP:OWNTALK, but it does have limits, as Wikipedia is not a web hosting service and ultimately what you talk about here has to have some connection with improving the encyclopedia, however tenuous that link. If you just want a place to explain your ideas about how HIV is fake, another wiki or web hosting service would be a better destination for that sort of essay. Normally you could discuss that at the article talk page, as long as it was strictly tied to how to improve the article, but due to previous events, I think you may have boxed yourself into a corner since I believe that talk page is off-limits to you as long as the Topic ban is in effect.

I hope to be able to work with you here on Wikipedia, or on Spanish Wikipedia, which needs help on a lot of articles (it's only about one-fourth the size of en-wiki) and I'd love to collaborate with you in either one of them. But please accept your topic ban in this area; avoiding discussing it at all, is really the best way forward, because I can see how it gets you all riled up, and that won't lead to anything good. Come join me in improving the articles on Argentine history, won't you please? Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess I can wait until the Topic ban is lifted. On the subject of Argentine History, I asked you how to do the inlinks. EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

If you seriously intend to try and claim that HIV, which claimed the lives of several of my patients, is fake, then you heading towards a train wreck. If this is an opinion which, in the face of the evidence, you hold, then I suggest that you should express it on some other medium. If you wish to comment to me then to avoid transgressing your ban do it by e-mail.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inlinks and orphans

You can start by having a glance at MOS:LINK, WP:ORPHAN (especially WP:ORPHAN#Various ways to de-orphan), WP:Piped link, and WP:Redirect.

As the first sentence at MOS:LINK says, Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. An article that has no inlinks to it from other articles, is called an "orphan". The point of finding inlinks, is to "de-orphan" the article, ie., to have other articles point to it. Not every brand new article is automatically an orphan, because of the presence of red links that already point to it from other articles in the encyclopedia. For example, if someone creates the article Juan Bautista Bustos it will not be an orphan, because the article Argentine Confederation already has a link to it; it's red (just like it is in this sentence) but it's a valid link, and the second that someone creates the new Bustos article, it will not be an orphan because the Confederation article already links to it.

You can find out if a new article, or some future article not written yet, is an orphan or not by clicking the "What links here?" link (in the left sidebar, under "Tools" on any Wikipedia page). In the input field labeled "Page", enter the name of the article for which you wish to locate inlinks. In the second field, "Namespace", select option "(Article)" and click [Go]. Try this now with Revolution of 11 September 1852. See how there are no results? Now, try it again, with Juan Bautista Bustos. Wow! See all those results? Every one of those pages has a link to the article Juan Bautista Bustos, even though it does not exist yet. As soon as someone writes it, it will be very well connected to the rest of Wikipedia, and adding inlinks will not be necessary. (The fact that there are currently so many red links to that title tell me that there is a great deal of interest in having an article on Bustos in the encyclopedia, and somebody should write it. Hint, hint!)

But, the 1852 coup article doesn't have any inlinks, so what to do? (Have another look at WP:ORPHAN#Various ways to de-orphan at this point.)

The way you link a brand new article into the rest of Wikipedia, is by finding other articles on related subjects, and see if they already talk about the topic of the new article. Ideally, you will find related articles which contain the exact title of your new article in the article body, as part of the running text in that article, just like in all those articles that already link to Bustos. But not every new article has red links to it from somewhere else, especially if the article title is long, like 11 Sept. Revolution article's full title is, and sometimes other articles do talk about the exact same topic, but maybe they call it something different, and even one letter out of place will make the link red; maybe they link an article as "Coup d'etat of..." instead of "Revolution of...", or they have the date in a different format or something.

There are a few approaches: create a redirect, use a piped link to the orphan article, or if natural and not awkward in the context of the existing page, reword the body text so that it matches the new title. In the case of a long article title, like ours, usually one of the first two choices is better, because the full, long title would probably end up sounding awkward as text in the middle of some sentence in another article.

As a concrete example, look at the first sentence of State of Buenos Aires, which contains this text: ...was a secessionist republic resulting from the overthrow of the Argentine Confederation government in the Province of Buenos Aires on September 11, 1852. This is clearly talking about the same event, and could be modified to have an inlink. I might simply add a piped link on the word "overthrow", to make it read, ...resulting from the [[Revolution of 11 September 1852|overthrow]] of the.... Or, I might add a few words to the sentence as long as it was a natural fit, so it looked like this instead: ...was a secessionist republic resulting from the overthrow of the Argentine Confederation government in the Province of Buenos Aires in a [[Revolution of 11 September 1852|coup d'etat on September 11, 1852]]. There is often more than one way to do it. (I'll talk about redirects another time.)

One caution: the WP:ORPHAN guideline talks about adding relevant and useful links, so avoid adding a link if it seems awkward, or like forcing something that doesn't really fit into the context of the other article.

This isn't the end of the story, but it's a good start and I'm running out of time to catch some daylight here, so maybe have a look at that stuff, and see if you can create some inlinks. The talk page of the article has some clues for you, and you can start from there. See Draft talk:Revolution of 11 September 1852#Possible inlinks. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited Bartolome Mitre, The State of Buenos Aires, and September 11. I wrote the sentence in Bartolomé Mitre as I showed; the article of the State of BS. AS already talked about the "coup d'êtat". As for the Partido Liberal de Corrientes, I'm not sure of it's involvement in the Revolution. EzequielBelaus (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

And I see that Juan Bautista Bustos has a full article on the Spanish Wiki. EzequielBelaus (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Thanks. They talked about the "liberales" in the Revolution article, but it probably just meant people of that political conviction, as the party doesn't seem to have existed until a few years later. But those folks probably made up the core of the party. If we can figure out what the precursors or background of the Liberal party was, and had a "background" section to that article, we might be able to link it to "Revoution", otherwise not. See if you can find more articles that talk about this, and maybe we can add a few more links.

Oh, and I forgot ot mention: leave off the "Draft:" part, and just enter the name of the article, with no "Draft:". The link will be read when you save the page, but that's okay; it will turn blue, as soon as we release the article. Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future articles

Do you have some idea what you'd like to work on next? We could do something in Spanish Wikipedia, where your created content would be in your native language. There's a great tool at WMFlabs for finding articles in English Wikipedia that are nmissing from Spanish, or vice versa: Wmflabs: Not in the Other Language. Knowing a bit about Wikipedia's Category system helps, but you'll get the hang of it. For "Category", put "History of Argentina", leave "levels" at 9, put "en" in the top selector, "es" in the bottom one, and hit "Search". All the results in the list, exist in en-wiki, but not in es-wiki. Or, you could do it the other way round, to find Spanish articles that we don't have here in en-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you ask me what I want to do, I'd like to add some info on Saint Seiya, because the article lacks in-depth info about the characters, and some key plot elements. But if you want me to stay on the subject of Argentine History, an article about Juan Bautista Bustos is something I'd be willing to create from scratch.

About articles present in the English Wikipedia that are missing from the Spanish Wikipedia: there are millions. If you wake up one day and say "Mmm I wonder if this article about (topic) hasn't been created on es:Wiki", it probably hasn't. I say this because I used the "Not in the other language" tool you showed me. And it's hillariously flawed. Setting the search with "en" on the upper field and "es" on the lower one, and "History of Argentina" as the Category, the top results were articles about USA fire-fighting departments. Inverting the fields, the top 200 results were about the Nazi Luftwaffe. Or maybe I didn't use the tool well. Who knows. EzequielBelaus (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

This is a volunteer project; far be it from me to tell you what to do. By all means add some info on Saint Seiya. Since this article already exists, you won't need me to generate the article framework for you, you can just jump right in, and start editing. I'd just give you a few tips:

Citations do take more time, and if you don't want to do that, be prepared that other editors may remove ("revert") your additions or changes if they don't agree with them. This is less likely to happen, if you add citations. See Help:Footnote. Also, since verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia, you'll pretty much have to learn how to do references at some point.
Before you make your first edit, learn about the previous history of the article a little bit:
- There is a history of prior discussion on the talk page at Talk:Saint Seiya. Most of these conversations are old now, but you can gain some sense of what's been discussed before.
- Click tab "History" (and then '500') to view the page's Revision History. For an explanation of the information on this page and how to read it, please see Help:Page history.
The article Saint Seiya has been in existence since 2003. Over 1,200 editors have contributed since then, and 149 are currently watching the page. As you are new to the article, please respect the work that has already been done. Make small, incremental changes at first, and see how you are received by other editors. If you get reverted, don't panic, don't get frustrated, and don't get annoyed. Talk it out on the talk page.

Regarding articles missing from es-wiki: I don't think the tool is flawed, but I may have forgotten to give you part of the instructions. After entering the category, please also select radio button "Source Wikipedia". Finally, I recommend putting something in "Page title" of your choosing. If you don't, it starts at the beginning, with articles starting with numbers. I put in "Buenos" in that field, and got these results. If you want more than 100 results per page, for example, 500, then add &limit=500 to the end of the url; which would then give you these longer results. Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mathglot. Sources are the first problem with this website. I've made edits about violin that no one contested. There is no intent to make hunching appear as not-harmful when one plays the violin. That's why, after I added "hunching" in the list of problems in violin-playing, nobody asked me for a source. The same goes for the "divisi" indication. But then I said that vibrato plays microtones, and some user, with the obvious fixation that Western and Eastern music are completely different, said that because I don't have a source for that, other than logical reasoning, that edit had to be reverted.

HIV and HIV denialism are biased as fuck, and I've already touched that subject. But if I want to edit the Saint Seiya article to add the information about attacks at the speed of sound, there might be someone who for some reason doesn't like it. And if I tell them that the source are the mangas, another reason will come so as to not admit that information. An edit that really might be contested is the David and Goliath theme that Saint Seiya has - weaker fighters defeating stronger ones - and I can forsee some religious or atheist zealot deleting it, because it's my own interpretation. EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

You're not allowed to use two accounts

Hi, EzequielBelaus. You are obviously operating a second account, Riveronthemountains. You're not allowed to have more than one account. Please pick one. Tell me below which one you want to use from now on, and I'll block the other one. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Ezequiel, the policy concerning user accounts is here: Wikipedia:Username policy, and the section governing multiple accounts is in section #Using multiple accounts. Duplicate accounts in violation of policy are called "socks" (from, "sock puppet") so you may hear that term used. You should pick which username you want, and the other one will become unusable. If the first one is similar to your real name and you prefer anonymity, you might want to pick the second one, but there are some users who use their real name and prefer it that way. The section of the policy which gives advice about this is at WP:REALNAME. But, the choice is yours.

Don't delay too much with this, as sockpuppetry is a serious problem at Wikipedia, and is usually cause for an indefinite block if ignored. I'd hate to see that happen, because I've invested a lot of time with you, and I don't want it to all have been for nothing. Take care of this, soon, okay? and let's go on to the next article. Con la esperanza de poder continuar colaborando contigo, Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand? The reason I created another account was so I could bypass the topic ban in HIV denialism. I posted something there, but my patience ended. If you really want me to decide, delete the riveronthemountains account. But we'll have to see if this account is still available JA JA JA JA JA JA EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC) fuck wikipedia[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Abuse of multiple accounts, personal attacks and topic ban violation. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) with Ponyo. I was trying to deal as gently as possible with you, EzequielBelaus, instead of immediately blocking you for abusing multiple accounts, and now you tell me you did it deliberately to bypass your topic ban. Are you seriously telling me you don't understand that blocks and bans apply to the person, not just to a particular account, and that to evade them by creating another account is abuse? Now another admin has blocked the riveronthemountains account indefinitely, and this one for two weeks, as is standard with abuse of multiple accounts, especially when it's compounded with rudeness and attacks. (If you post more of those here, your talkpage access will be revoked, too.) And I think they did the right thing. Sorry, Mathglot. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) with Bishonen. Ezequiel, I was really disappointed with your last response. In case it wasn't made clear to you before, a Topic ban applies to a living person, not to an account or an IP address. So, you can't just change accounts and start editing again, or a Topic ban would make no sense. I hope a two-week cooling-off period will help, and when the block expires around this time on 26 June, let's go back to working on manga or Argentine history, okay? Saludos, Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too, Bishonen. And I know you were being gentle, well beyond where you needed to; and that Ponyo did the right thing. I hope this can still be salvaged. We shall see. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Hi Ezequiel -- please don't edit other people's talk page comments, like you did here, and again here. Please see the talk page guidelines on this subject. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Repeated breach of T-Ban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathglot#I'm_back) and combattive attitude.. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I never talked about HIV in my posts. I don't know why you are so focused in signatures, if it's only the content of posts that matters. EzequielBelaus (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC) HIV doesn't exist[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violation of your topic ban, including in this unblock request. If that continues, you are likely to have your block extended indefinitely and you may lose access to this talk page. Start taking your topic ban seriously, immediately. Yamla (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (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.

You've been topic banned from HIV (for any outside readers who cannot find this ban: it's at User talk:190.173.240.80), so you put "HIV doesn't exist" into your signature instead, and try to argue that "I don't know why you are so focused in signatures"? Amazing. People have bent over backwards to be tolerant of your missteps, but you just make it clearer and clearer that you're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia|. You have been blocked indefinitely with talkpage access removed. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | talk 22:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:190.173.150.216#Range blocked again. Mathglot (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism#Changes^{[ permalink ]}. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism#Recent IP vandalism and 2018 sock (perma) Mathglot (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely additionals

Thanks, Mathglot. I tried to find some ranges there that could be blocked, but the IPs are just too spread out. HIV/AIDS denialism and its talkpage (vandalized today) are already semi'd. Are there any other pages I could usefully semi? Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

More IP socks:

181.26.19.226 (talk · contribs)
181.26.42.132 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
181.26.8.161 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
181.26.47.98 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple:181.26.29.243 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple:181.26.6.91 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple:181.26.42.170 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
es:181.26.46.195 (talk · contribs) --Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP range 181.26.0.0/18 was blocked 21:52, 2 October 2021 by Drmies: --Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Como sos vos?

Ezequiel, I see you've been at it again on various user talk pages, including mine (here, here, and here), Bishonen's (here), MrOllie's (here), this page (here and here), and also at the HIV/AIDS page (here). This is beneath you, and comes across as very childish. I know you're capable of doing good work, because you did some at the Revolution of 11 September 1852 article with me. Wouldn't you like to do something productive here, instead of just messing up talk pages? Hope you're doing well, otherwise. Take care, Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that your talk page access has been removed, so you can't respond here; that's a pity. If you'd still like to contribute positively to the encyclopedia one day, then you could try waiting a few weeks to let the effect of your recent talk page vandalism cool off a bit, and then I think it's possible to request that your talk page access be returned. To do this, you'd have to send an e-mail; instructions for this can be found at Unblock Ticket Request System, if you're interested. At a minimum, you'd have to say in the email that you won't vandalize any talk pages anymore, and include the reason you'd like to have Talk page access returned. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been pointless, but I tried to engage with him here. I also thought he was a promising editor, but something went terribly wrong. If you are reading this Ezequiel -- you really don't gain anything by vandalizing HIV-related pages. Remember that some people thought highly of you once. Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]