User talk:Historiador1993

October 2021

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Some1 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janauary 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Generations sidebar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sumanuil 05:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Generations sidebar‎‎. 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Some1 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Strauss–Howe generational theory, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warring at all, it's just unfair that you guys are reverting my work, i'm not violating copyright or anything for you to do that and i'm using trustful and reliable american sources, it's funny how you all have a strong preference for the PEW Research cohort, and you want to impose it as the "official" thing, when in fact there are many other important cohorts like the one I am putting. Stop giving preference to the definition of PEW, because that only cause that readers accept it as the only and absolute truth, which is not, and for someone like me, who has made studies about this generational topics for a long time it's offensive and dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiador1993 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to discuss your edits and propose any changes to the template, please do so at the template's talk page:Template_talk:Generations_sidebar. I also recommend that you read through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a content policy on Wikipedia. The information/date ranges on the current image of the sidebar comes from the leads (which is based on the Date and age ranges sections) of the respective generation articles. These are the typically/widely/generally/commonly used date ranges for the particular generations per WP:Reliable sources. The image you're trying to add, with ranges from the Strauss-Howe theory, is WP:UNDUE for inclusion (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight) because Strauss-Howe's generational ranges are not widely (if at all) used by reliable sources. Per WP:UNDUE, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Some1 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HA! FUNNY, "reliable sources" you claim, which are those? Media articles like Forbes? or Daily Mail? PEW Research is just one think tank, and why not using Resolution Foundation's 1981-2000 cohort? They are also a think tank like PEW, lame excuses just to impose your own ideas based on what's "widely accepted", or i should say widely spreaded by fake media and you take it as reliable sources, and i must remember you that many people out there use the 1980-2000 cohort which is the most correct one, giving the fact that generations last at least 18-20 years. But yeah, let's keep giving the readers this PEW bullsh*t cohort, other serious studies and books made by demographers/historians/economists don't count at all....sorry for the bad word but this makes me mad, i take this topic very serious and want to make people more enligthen, hopefully you all admins change your mind and stop imposing your "mainstream" definition, this is an encyclopedia, not TikTok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiador1993 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Generations sidebar. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Some1 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shut up, you starte with this edit war first!! you deleted all my additions from today, the ones i cited with reliable sources, you just declared war on me, and dont even think about blocking me cause i have many more account in here, so i wont stop until you give me an explanation on why you deleted my sources, just because you are in love with PEW RESEARCH CENTER, yes, you are in love with those guys and thats why your article is full of that shit, you better not do anything stupid Historiador1993 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tow (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shut up, you starte with this edit war first!! you deleted all my additions from today, the ones i cited with reliable sources, you just declared war on me, and dont even think about blocking me cause i have many more account in here, so i wont stop until you give me an explanation on why you deleted my sources, just because you are in love with PEW RESEARCH CENTER, yes, you are in love with those guys and thats why your article is full of that shit, you better not do anything stupid Historiador1993 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked from Wikipedia. 70.70.22.133 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAR DECLARED!!! I'M COMING BACK FOR YOU AND ALL OF THIS STUPID ADMINS, I HAVE MANY MANY ACCOUNTS HERE, I WONT STOP, YOU DECLARED WAR ON ME FIRST AND WAR YOU ARE GONNA HAVE!!! Historiador1993 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Zillennials

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Zillennials, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]