Jump to content

User talk:PLUS ULTRA CARLOS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Day of Spain (October 22)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Draft contains only a link to another Wikipedia article; as such it appears to be a request for a redirect and is thus misplaced. Please follow the instructions in the decline noptice.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Eagleash (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, PLUS ULTRA CARLOS! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Day of Spain; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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. --John B123 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plus Ultra Carlos. I see that you keep trying to create a full article at the redirect page National Day of Spain. You need to stop doing that, and I have protected the redirect page to make you stop doing it. We do not allow two separate articles on the same subject. Everything that needs to be said about the National Day of Spain is already covered in the article Fiesta Nacional de España. And anyone who searches in English for information will automatically be directed to that article. You are welcome to edit that article if you wish to improve it. But leave the redirect page alone. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the name of the title in Spanish of the existing page must be changed to English language title and will be no more problem

Example 1: День испанской нации The Fiesta Nacional de España (Festa Nacional d'Espanya in Catalan/Valencian/Balearic; Festa Nacional de España in Galician; Espainiako Jai Nazionala in Basque) is the national day of Spain. It is held annually on 12 October and is a national holiday. It is also traditionally referred to as the Día de la Hispanidad (Hispanicity), commemorating the Spanish legacy to the world, specially in America.

Example 2: اليوم الوطني للسويد The National Day of Sweden (Swedish: Sveriges nationaldag) is a national holiday observed annually in Sweden on 6 June. Prior to 1983, the day was celebrated as Swedish Flag Day (Swedish: Svenska flaggans dag). At that time, the day was renamed the Swedish National Day by the Riksdag

Example 3: 칠레 국경일 චිලි රාජ්‍යයේ ෆියෙස්ටාස් පේට්‍රියස් උත්සවය දින දෙකක් තුල පැවැත්වෙයි: සැප්තැම්බර් 18, 1810දී පළමු පාලක සභාව පිහිටුවීම ප්‍රකාශයට පත්කිරීම සහ චිලියානු නිදහස් ක්‍රියාවලිය ඇරඹුම සිහිකෙරුමට . සැප්තැම්බර් 19, "හමුදාවේ කීර්තිය පිළිබඳ දිනය" ලෙසින් හැඳින්වෙයි. චිලි රාජ්‍යය තුල ෆියෙස්ටාස් පේට්‍රියස් උත්සවය බොහෝ විට දියැචියෝචෝ ලෙසින් හෝ "18වන" ලෙසින් හෝ හැඳින්වෙන්නේ, සැමරුම සැප්තැම්බර් 18 දිනදී පැවැත්වෙන නිසාය. එය පැවැත්වෙන සතියේ දිනය අනුව, නිලනොලත් ලෙසින්, උත්සවය සතියක් පමණ කාලයක් පුරා පැවතිය හැකිය (නිදසුනක් ලෙසින්, 18වන දින බදාදා දිනයක් නම්, උත්සවය 14වන සෙනසුරාදා ඇරඹී 22වන ඉරිදා දක්වා පැවතිය හැක). ඩොහෝ පාසැල් සහ කාර්යාල විසින්, මෙම උත්සවය වෙනුවෙන්, සතියක්-දිගු නිවාඩුවක් ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කරති.

Example 4: Fete nationale de la France יום הבסטיליה (בצרפתית: Fête nationale - חג לאומי, נודע גם כ-Quatorze juillet - ‏14 ביולי), הוא החג הלאומי ויום העצמאות הרשמי של צרפת, אשר נחוג ב-14 ביולי, היום בו התרחשה נפילת הבסטיליה (1789), אירוע מכונן במהפכה הצרפתית.

Exemple 5: ఇటలీ జాతీయ దినోత్సవం Festa della Repubblica ([ˈfɛsta della reˈpubblika]; English: Republic Day) is the Italian National Day and Republic Day, which is celebrated on 2 June each year, with the main celebration taking place in Rome. The Festa della Repubblica is one of the national symbols of Italy.


Exemple 6: Yhdysvaltojen kansallispäivä Independence Day (colloquially the Fourth of July or July 4) is a federal holiday in the United States commemorating the Declaration of Independence of the United States, on July 4, 1776.


The above examples are precisely the current situation with the English page Fiesta Nacional de España with a Spanish language title. This must change. Sure you understand. Please help.

Those are not good examples. In those cases the title HAD to be translated, because the other language uses a different alphabet. We do not have a consistent style here, whether to use the English name or the native name. We often do translate the titles of foreign holidays, but not always; see Public holidays in Spain for example. If you think the name of the existing article should be changed to National Day of Spain, you could suggest it at Talk:Fiesta Nacional de España. Or if you would like me to set that up, as a formal request, just ask and I will do so. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


      • Morning, MelanieN and thank you very much for your feedback. Your final proposal, to change the title name of "Fiesta Nacional de Espana" page to "National Day of Spain" should be the solution. Could you set up that, as a formal request? But please allow me to justify it.

You say that in the cases above the title HAD to be translated because the other language uses a different alphabet... but, sorry, I do not get the point: in my cases above, precisely, there were no translation of the title to the article language. Besides, my example 6 is Latin alphabet (both title and article content) but in different languages... and we could make millions of combinations of different languages using the same alphabet. There is no obligation at all for anybody in his/her own language to put a title of an article in a foreign language only understood by a some readers. The title of a foreign fact or event can perfectly be written in the language of the article.

My point is that we can not presume that the reader of the article content understands a foreign language title, whether using the same alphabet or not. In my opinion, if a translation of the title is to be made, it is not at the title entry (in our case "Fiesta Nacional de Espana") but later, i.e. the introduction, like it is actually the common practice in Wikipedia. So the title should ideally be National Day of Spain, eventually translating it to Spanish later

Finally, please note that the "National Day of Spain" page was first redirected to "Columbus Day", which I found simply a bad joke which led me to make a little contribution...After my intervention expanding the content, another user(s) undid my work and redirected to "Fiesta Nacional de Espana".

Well, many thanks again for your time and assistance PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will set up a formal request. I will do it right now. In the mean time DO NOT make the changes to the article. I have reverted them. Changes should not be done until the changing of the article title is approved. Have patience and we will get this done the right way. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have set up the request at Talk:Fiesta Nacional de España. You can comment there. Here's how to comment: Put this code at the beginning: *'''Support'''. That will make it appear as bold type; you will see how I did it. Keep your argument short and to the point; if your argument is multiple paragraphs people will not read it. I think the reason for changing it is fairly simple and does not need a long explanation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Many thanks for launching and backing the proposal and for the instructions to participate. I will do it as indicated. I agree, no need of much reasoning to justify the title modification...
        • Just remember to always SIGN your comments at talk pages. Don't type your name; instead use the automatic signing method for Wikipedia. That will sign your name with a link to your user page and user talk page, and it adds a date/time stamp. You can do that in either or two ways: by typing four tildes like this ~~~~, or by putting your cursor at the end of your comments and then clicking on the button at the top of the editing page that looks like a signature. Here's what happens when I do that: -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it. Thank you again for your good guidance.

You undid some of my todas'y work. I did not know modifying this article required a consensus! I am confident that they will be accepted once the title issue is settled. Your undoing restored the "Commemoration" section...but it is really to be deleted since I had already placed its content in other article sections and now said content appears duplicated....

Besides, I had modified the basic features of the festivity on the top right space including the inclusion of the symbols of the country (flag and coat of arms) with some legend and meaning. I believe those modifications gives distinctiveness and upgrades the quality of the article, while mirroring the main features of other good articles on the same subject regarding other countries.

Could you cancel your undoing of my work just to let the other users decide upon the new version proposed by me having it up before their eyes? Or it is not necessary? Many thanks MelanieN. --PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

let the other users decide upon the new version proposed by me having it up before their eyes That's backward. First people agree, THEN it gets changed. In particular the lead sentence should not be changed until the title is changed; the lead sentence is supposed to match the title. I hadn't noticed that some of the material you removed was duplicated by the huge addition you made earlier. That huge addition, was that the material you were trying to add to the redirect National Day of Spain? The new material will need a lot of work, fixing misspellings (like commemoration) and removing language that is not encyclopedic and too casual (like "no food, no feast!) and so on. If you want to revert some of my removals go ahead, but do not change the lead sentence. You need to be more patient and let the process take its course. A move request normally runs for at least a week, often longer, to let people have a chance to comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello again, thank you for the tips. I have made some additional work but has not touched the lead sentence, though I wish to...:) once we get the title modified. As per your question, yes, I had made some changes some days ago with the material I later used to expand the void redirecting page.

I see other users have come in the meanwhile to help with the editing...Many thanks --PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Day of Spain

[edit]

Information icon Hello, PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Day of Spain, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Day of Spain

[edit]

Hello, PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Day of Spain".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan's circumnavigation issues

[edit]

Hi, I reverted your changes to the introduction at Magellan's circumnavigation, and wanted to explain why (and I figured it would be awkward to try to squeeze it all into an edit summary). The main issue is one of WP:NPOV. Even if it wasn't your intention, a lot of the changes have the effect of injecting a certain nationalistic point of view: adding more emphasis on the role of Elcano, reducing the prominence of Magellan, and downplaying Magellan's ties to Portugal. It's important that the introduction give a brief overview that reflects the weight given to different aspects of the topic in RS, and I think your changes were not helpful in that regard. Other issues:

  • A navigation template like Template:Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation is not appropriate for the intro - it should generally be placed only at the bottom of the article.
  • It's preferred to use the "upright" parameter to specify image sizes rather than raw pixel values, as the former respects user's image display preferences.
  • Your change to the figure for the size of the crew is uncited, and it contradicts the figure later in the body which is cited.

Sorry to undo your work like this, but I'm happy to discuss further if you disagree with my assessment. Colin M (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferdinand Magellan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hispanic Monarchy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of top international rankings by country, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coran and Aragonese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of top international rankings by country, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cauca and Siege of Saragossa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

[edit]

Information icon Thanks for contributing to the article List of top international rankings by country. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Spanish Empire, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please continue to engage with editors in the relevant talk page section, rather than removing sourced content. Also, you may find it helpful to read the Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, advocacy and reliable sourcing. Thank you. Jr8825 • Talk 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:FDW777. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Beyond the alphabet soup in [1], labeling said edit or editor with WP:VANDAL is a personal attack. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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. FDW777 (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of top international rankings by country, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cauca and Siege of Saragossa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent edit-warring, which you have continued to do despite having been informed of the relevant policy ten months ago. I also advise you to take seriously warnings you have been given about other editing problems, because if you continue in the same way thre is a danger you may be blocked for much longer, perhaps even indefinitely. 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 ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, This is to contest the blocking of my account by User JBW until August 26, to seek acknowledgment the undue blocking and eventually unblock my account. The blocking relates to late editing activity of List of top international rankings by country where the content I seek to add in compliance with WP rules has been arbitrarily removed by some users, i.e. Colin M and FDW777.

In order to gain consensus, a discussion on the issues at stake was previously engaged and is still open in the article talk. See Talk:List of top international rankings by country

In the morning of August 23 I made a 2nd revert of the 2nd edit of User FDW777 mass removing the content I have added and posted my reasons at the article talk page.

At the same time, I received a edit-war warning from User FDW777, the same user removing my edits. See my user's page talk and the article's revision history.

No more editing was undertaken from my part. My posts in the talk, the last on August 23, undoubtedly show my willing to seek consensus and work things out or solution through dispute resolution.

The ephemeral edit-war ceased and was no more. In any case, you should agree with me, my actions did not break the WP:EW, in particular the WP:3RR as to deserve an account block.

Further, in the morning of August 24, called upon by another user at User talk:JBW, administrator JBW made its intervention on the issue as follows: User JBW addressed an edit-war warning to User talk:FDW777. See User talk:FDW777.

No more editing were made by User FDW777 who was also participating in the conflictive article talk discussion.

However, despite the above, User JBW decided to unduly block my account pretending a “persistent edit-warring”. Besides, he tried to further justify the blocking by recalling I was informed on WP policies - while a new user - « 10 months ago » !? What kind of WP administrator is this JBW person???

Please, wonder how User JBW warns User talk:FDW777 about edit-war for two reverts while he blocks my account for the same. This can only lead to the conclusion that User JBW's blocking my account is not preventive but punitive and thus abusive and against Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

Please, check the record of User JBW, previously User :JamesBWatson and if his doings really respond to a Wikipedia administrator's honors and spirit. Reading other user's statements, removing content and blocking users, whether justified or not, appears to be the major account's activity since the 2000's. According to an users's claim, more than 9'000 blocks in four years only by 2014. Wow. FYI: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5869 Thank you very much.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, see WP:NOTTHEM. Second, you'll be out of this in a few hours so at this point I don't consider an unblock to really be worth it. Third, also consider WP:TLDR in the future when formulating unblock requests, which of course we all hope you will not have to do. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Daniel Case's decision above to keep my account block, apart from two advices on how to formulate an appeal, gives no explanation related to the subject matter: the account block was in compliance of Wikipedia:Blocking policy or not. Thank you very much for unblocking my account if yet blocked and in any case please decide on the subject matter of the appeal. Many thanks in advance. --PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block has already expired. Yamla (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (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.

The template is called "request for unblock". It is not called "request for explanation of block". Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you additional insights and guidance, Daniel Case. Indeed you failed to provide explanation when due in your (nice and short) decision on appeal. Before bringing the issue to upper WP authority, I kindly offer you, along with User JBW or even Yamla, the opportunity to comply with WP:ADMINACCT by explaining your respective actions, account taken of the facts reported in the appeal and any other you may have considered to take your decisions. Thank you very much. --PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking for the edit warring policy. It was a good block. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with HBC above. And I reiterate that an admin considering an unblock request is under no obligation to consider the basis of the block (though of course they can if they desire). Getting unblocked is about convincing the reviewing admin that if unblocked (especially in a situation like yours where it was a rather short, definite block) you will not repeat the behavior that got you blocked. It looks better when a requestor focuses on that no matter how unfair s/he/they think/s the block to be, and saves the argument about the block for some other forum.

Using the unblock request to relitigate the block, especially at length, sends the metamessage that we can only expect you to continue to be querulous if unblocked. This action on your part once the block expired does not in the least disabuse me of that impression. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello to all again,

Honestly, I'm very sorry, disappointed and discouraged for the above comments and the development of this controversy, starting with the first account block. At this point, I also address myself to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as I consider the block and the decision on appeal unjustified, my request of explanations, in the appeal and thereafter ignored, all meaning the successive actions breaking administrators' obligations and several WP rules.

Again, the reason of my repeated request, this comment included, is to have some explanation on what conduct of mine justified the account block (and this regardless its duration; considering the other editor who has not been sanctioned for the same behavior and that I did respect his last article edit and the ongoing discussion continued at the talk). I revise my actions at the light of WP:EW and other WP rules and do not really find a reason to see my account blocked, not even for a very short period. I do not what I am missing.

Like for any other editor, it is of utmost importance for me to know what is accepted to be done or not, specially since I am a newcomer in the community. Since, despite my repeated requests, I get no explanation yet from any of the administrators here above in relation to the case, I having no specific feedback for me to improve my participation in WP and remain at the mercy of unclear rules and potential arbitrary administrators' actions. The replies are in my viewpoint far from being constructive and reinforce the impression of a punitive block and a tool misuse.

The above is of special importance since the block and the appeal decisions seem to have been taken dismissing any reasonable doubt about the appropriateness of the block, thus without consulting any other administrator and/or the community. This means the administrators involved had no doubt to apply or keep the block; that they were certain about the appropriateness of the block. They are again kindly requested to explain their respective actions, i.e. their certainty justifying the block.

In regard to the administrators' conduct, please, correct me if I miss something, following the letter of WP:ADMINACCT :

- Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools.

- Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

- Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

That rule further indicates that the lack of explanations and unsatisfactory communication may represent a serious problematic administrator's acting. A lack of suitable explanations of actions or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought) may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed.

Morover, “Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. » (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Communication)

For the administrators' replies above, it seems to me that, as the case may be, they do not feel concerned about those WP rules and rulings. Besides, the above should counter Daniel Case's last impressions about my legitimate timely appeals (the second while the block was still active, against that administrator's sayings) and explanations requests which remain to date simply ignored therefore failing to adequately address this editor's raised concerns.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance...and due explanations from any WP administrator including User JBW, Daniel Case, Yamla and User:HighInBC--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used in List of top international rankings by country

[edit]

I've taken a quick but not exhaustive look at the sources you've used. Oldest.org and rarest.org fail WP:RS, and I've mentioned that at WP:RSN. Translationroyale.com is clearly not a reliable source, it says "We take pride in providing high-quality translation, content creation, and proofreading services not only to the iGaming industry but also to clients across a diverse range of industries." Anything that says "wikia" or some form of that is unlikely to be a reliable source unless maintained by experts. Also you need to link all of your entries to their articles, and I note that Nabta Playa does not make the claims your source does, so the list shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at your edits for Spain, a lot of the sources fail WP:RS and others are misused. You can't use a 2015 source to claim a restaurant in Spain is the best in the world. It didn't get that rank in 2016 or 2017, got it again in 2018, and I don't think had it in 2019. I expect that there are similar problems for other countries, these articles tend to be a mess because people use them to promote their country. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 16:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Doug Weller for your comments. I revert to you in short.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I am busy these days and will come back to you as soon as I am available. Thank you again and see you soon. Regards--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

[edit]

I closed your most recent discussion (see diff). Let me offer some strong words of advice, which largely mirror what Johnuniq said: if you don't drop this and go do something productive, you will most likely be topic-banned or blocked rather expeditiously. Daniel (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your advice Daniel. I was not able to make my final comments for the discussion was closed I guess inadvertently by an administrator. I could find the time to do it now opening a new section which content I hope you'll find productive and useful. Please, pay attention of the two issues I raise to slightly improve a couple of WP policies' points which in my opinion may help many...Thank you very much again.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to take the advice I provided you. You have subsequently been blocked indefinitely, as I have determined you are not here to build an encyclopedia based on your recent edits, and your failure to heed warnings about your disruptive behaviour. You can appeal this block by posting {{unblock|your text here}}, although note that this block is going to be debated at the administrators' noticeboard, where a consensus to support or overturn my block will eventually emerge. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Daniel, Yamla, HighInBC, Cabayi, Acroterion, Miniapolis, Colin M, Doug Weller

Sorry but I really considered important to show my acceptance of the block to the administrators and, learning more on WP's rules, give some feedback to improve a couple of things of general interest in a constructive way. I seized the noticeboard seeking answers about the block, they were given and I got the message and learned. The horse was well dead (new rule I learn) and buried and my last post in the noticeboard was to subscribe the assessments on good block after I understood the explanations provided.

As per the other questions raised, i.e. being wrongly pointed as to continue accusing someone of vandalism after being warned and others regarding the article, not the block dead controversy, please consider this or any other editor's very reasonable, legitimate interest to contest/comment on it, specially unwarranted, serious assertions against them. Maybe they should have been dealt in the article talk or the user's instead of the noticeboard? I do not know, but in any case my concerns aimed to be not disruptive but productive, i.e. improving the policies or the article at the origin of the controversy. If anyway some may consider it disruptive, please not as a matter of will but just, eventually, as a result. I am no troll but edit in good faith and just love history as my several contributions and related talk discussions indicate. Indeed, I am a newcomer here to build, nothing else...Many thanks to all for your time.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PLUS_ULTRA_CARLOS&oldid=1043960981"