User talk:Ojeda jp

Calamba, Laguna

Explain why the sudden move of Calamba, Laguna to Calamba City when previous discussions have already been done as to the city article name (see WP:MOSPHIL for associated styles}. Flagging my edits as vandalism is unfounded, I have only been removing content that do not follow Wikipedia policies, most notably WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.

Kindly check the Move log of the article, as seen here. Before you moved it to "Calamba City", there has already been a consensus as to the article's title as evidenced by a move request. Please avoid owning the article as well, as everyone is entitled to edit any article in this encyclopedia. Cheers. Xeltran (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless you can prove why you had to revert my edits without sufficient reason, you may be flagged and reported to an administrator for proper intervention. All my edits to the article had corresponding edit summaries. The least you could do is start a section in the Talk page explaining why you need to undo my edits. Xeltran (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:V and WP:RS, all added material in Wikipedia should be verifiable. No source was given from a make-believe "Laguna West Metro." Only NEDA can make nationwide declarations about metropolitan areas unless a provincial government issues such (but it won't be at par with a NEDA-declared metro area anyway). Don't resort to personal attacks as you weaken your argument plus you can get banned as well. Don't use socks too, as I am bound to find out what other accounts you're using eventually anyway. Xeltran (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Calamba, Laguna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Xeltran (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at the edit warring noticeboard

Hello Ojeda jp. Please see a discussion of your edits that has been opened WP:AN3#User:Ojeda jp reported by User:Xeltran (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for massive and ethnically-based personal attacks here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Calamba, Laguna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Xeltran (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed blackout in protest of RA 10175

Dear Ojeda jp,

Greetings!

As a Filipino Wikipedian, I hope you are aware of the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012. Currently, there is a discussion on the Tambayan, the noticeboard for Philippines-related topics, about a proposed blackout of the English Wikipedia in the Philippines in order to protest the passage of RA 10175, similar to the blackout against SOPA and PIPA held earlier this year. I feel that your input on the subject will definitely help in the discussion.

Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#The Cybercrime Prevention Act, and I hope your input will help the Filipino Wikipedia community determine which is the best course of action against this law. Similarly, we hope to get as much input from as many Wikipedians as possible.

Thank you and maraming salamat po!

Kind regards,

Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Ojeda jp,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]