User talk:Eldizzino: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:05, 15 June 2015

May 2015

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was NOT a cut and past move. It was an ARTICLE SPLIT. Eldizzino (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cut and paste move, is when you take the contents of one page, place it on another page, then blank/redirect the original article to the new page(s). This is what you did. You moved the contents to two different pages (existing redirects), then removed all of the information from the original page. That is the very definition of a cut/paste move.

The correct way to do this (IF there is consensus - and not just you thinking you should do it now that it's got to this point.) is that the communes section should be moved out of the article, and the existing page moved to the new title (Barrio or neighbourhood).

As I said though, now it's got to this point, you need to explain WHY it should be split, with relevent 'arguments', not just because it should be or because that's the way the spanish wikipedia has it - Happysailor ^(Talk) 20:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article SPLIT. The old bad article could not and cannot be moved to TWO targets. It is not "Barrio or neighbourhood", it is Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires and Communes of Buenos Aires. Eldizzino (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the way that you were splitting it wasn't correct, also you need a consensus to do the split. Since I'm pretty sure you were trying to be helpful, I'm going to try and setup the article split discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If something in the splitting was not correct, then Happysailor could have said so. But they didn't. And if I would be aware of what was not correct I could have either fixed it, or someone else could have fixed it. After all this is a WIKI that allows collaboration. BUT: Thank you for now helping with the CONTENT discussion. Eldizzino (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is you shouldn't be splitting articles without a consensus to do so. I've proposed a split, and opened up discussion about it at Talk:Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires#Split Proposal- if there is a consensus to perform the split, then it would involve some complicated moving for attribution purposes. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Barrios of Buenos Aires has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Barrios of Buenos Aires was changed by Eldizzino (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.978834 on 2015-05-28T19:32:37+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios of Buenos Aires with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Barrios of Buenos Aires. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires. You don't have a consensus to do this. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for an hour, just to give you a chance to cool off and consider the advice that you have been given, before you end up earning a much longer block. bd2412 T 20:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are corrupt. You abused your admins rights. I did split the bad article. I described it in the talk page. The other editors reverted, claiming "vandalism", full a bad faith. Claiming edit warring, where they did edit war - they did not discuss anything, while I use the talk page. And you on the talk wrote, there is no need for disambiguation - and when I wanted to remove Template:disambiguation you already blocked me. Eldizzino (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the issue does not mean repeatedly reverting other editors while adding a talk page justification for your actions. It means letting the status quo be while persuading others of the merits of your position. bd2412 T 20:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The others were no way interested in the content. The just reverted shouting "Vandalism" and alike. Eldizzino (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you continue reverting when unblocked, you'll just get blocked for longer. Try formulating a sensible argument instead- for instance, looking at how reliable sources deal with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the corrupt cult here. You can revert without having demonstrated interest in the topic, and you don't get blocked. But I get blocked. Eldizzino (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eldizzino reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did split the bad article. I described it in the talk page. You blindly reverted, claiming edit warring, where YOU did edit war - you did not discuss anything, while I use the talk page.

You could first place report yourself. Eldizzino (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because cut-and-paste moves are a violation of Wikipedia copyright, and so are exempt. Go to talkpage, get a consensus, then move it properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not other way to SPLIT an article, than COPY and PASTE. Go, and report yourself. Eldizzino (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just about to set up a discussion the proper way, so no, I'm not going to report myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colchagua Valley (wine region)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Colchagua Valley (wine region), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://gavinhubble-wineblogs.blogspot.com/2013/10/colchagua-valley-wine-region-chile.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Colchagua Valley (wine region)

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.

A tag has been placed on Colchagua Valley (wine region) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://gavinhubble-wineblogs.blogspot.com/2013/10/colchagua-valley-wine-region-chile.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 06:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Última Esperanza Department

The article Última Esperanza Department has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a hoax. This article contains no sources and there are no hits for "Última Esperanza Department" in Google Books or Google News.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cardenal Caro department

Hi, I have expanded the article with content based on one of my articles (not Wikipedia articles) :-P I will, however, move back Cardenal Caro Province article to Cardenal Caro, it had been like that for years. --Diego Grez (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Kountz

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.

A tag has been placed on Richard Kountz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create article

I was going to say the paper's Javad Ramezani He established the Iranian and American readers.--5.232.39.249 (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Eldizzino! Thank you for your contributions. I am SmokeyJoe and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences

The article Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]
 Also, when you post on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] you should [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that will automatically produce your username and the date.  I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]!  [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
+==  Proposed deletion of Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences ==
+[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]]
+The article [[Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32; because of the following concern:
+:'''The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing [[Wikipedia:General notability guideline]] and the more detailed [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies)]] requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and [[WP:ECHO|ping me back]]. Thank you,'''
+While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
+You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[{{TALKPAGENAME:Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences}}|the article's talk page]].
+Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)