User talk:194.38.172.194

November 2023

Please do not change 'Catalan' to 'Spanish' as you did here. National and regional origins can be a very sensitive issue, and changes like this are disruptive in articles with a strong connection to a particular region or country. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not erase illegal as the referendum as illegal. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Adakiko. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Carles Puigdemont seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adakiko. Mr. Puigdemont has a Spanish passport not a Catalan passport. Catalonia is not an official country recognized by the UN whereas Spain is. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Jamedeus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Luís da Cunha, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jamedeus (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamadeus. I found his name here https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database#results data come from here AHU,Guiné,Cx.1,D.52: Arquivo Historico Ultramarino (Lisbon), SEMU-DGU. You can put his name in the database and you will find him. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2024

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Francisco Menéndez (black soldier) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Donald Albury 15:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Speaking community to trans atlantic african slaves traded ratio (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" for more information.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Speaking community to trans atlantic african slaves traded ratio and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 194.38.172.194! Having an article draft 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! Qcne (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Slavery in colonial Spanish America, 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. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, many of the references cited are to literature and not historical documents, as well as to literary blogs with no historical connection. Please be more rigorous in the references used since wikipedia has rules that must be followed. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may argue your point on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done thank you. Please check the references! 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Slavery in Colombia, you may be blocked from editing. You may argue your point on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is threatening to report me in my talk page if I change the version of this article he wants to publish even though the version I want to publish has academic references and is a literal translation of the article in Spanish. Please help me with this injustice. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Please check the version I am publishing as it has more academic references. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the text in accordance with your suggestion. You were correct; I did not write it properly at first. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted by another editor, User:Babysharkboss2. I think it's time to actually discuss these edits on the article talk page, and do it piecemeal. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2024 (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; read about 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. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, I addressed the issue that Babysharkboss2 pointed out regarding the opinion, while retaining all the other referenced content. I simply translated the content from the Spanish page. I kindly ask that you review my edits, as I put in a lot of effort. I am a bit puzzled by your mention of an edit war, as I believe I have only added valuable content with proper sources to the page. Thank you for your understanding. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Fish!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Being too silly

Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Actin' like a maniac!)} 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the text in accordance with Drmies suggestion. He was correct; I did not write it properly at first. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits of Carles Puigdemont

In case I was too brief in the edit description, I want to explain my revert of your edits in more detail, because I see that you have reinstated your edits multiple times now without addressing the issues described.

Firstly, it's not appropriate to insert multiple wikilinks to the same word in one article, especially for a very easily-understood word such as "Spain". Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines at Manual of Style: Overlinking and especially note:

"major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Countries"
"The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect."

Secondly, your assertion that someone has to have a "Catalan passport" to be considered Catalan is not logical. The page itself describes what is meant by the term. I do not believe you are attempting to assert that there is evidence that the term was misapplied, only that you do not think the term has value. The Carles Puigdemont article is not the right place for this. Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines at Manual of Style: Biography and particularly:

"A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity that reliable sources use most often and with which the subject identifies."

I will again revert your most recent edit, which additionally introduced an incorrect wikilink from the text (of the former link) 'Catalan declaration of independence' to 'illegal' instead. Please refrain from repeatedly making such edits to this and other articles. Turtlecrown (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your assertions. As you can see in my latest edition, I have rectified the repetitive allusions to your Spanish nationality, and I have appended 'illegal' to the unilateral referendum, which was indeed illegal. I urge you to review my edit and give it due consideration before criticizing the previously corrected edit. Thank you 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Specifically, the revert you just made, again:

introduces six wikilinks to Spain
changes the link to the referendum so that it wrongly points to the page called 'illegal'

The edit only reverted to the same version without addressing any of the issues cited above. Maybe you need to double-check which content you are reverting, especially when doing so repeatedly and with multiple editors. I have given detailed consideration to your edit above. In the same spirit, I urge you to review the guidelines, and give them the same consideration. Turtlecrown (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Turtlecrown, Thank you for your message. I have revised the reference to the illegal independence referendum to comply with the editing guidelines. I apologize for not paying attention to that. Your guidance is much appreciated. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Obi2canibe (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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; read about 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. Theklan (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as done at Carles Puigdemont.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Aimeé García Marrero: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake. Thanks 194.38.172.194 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your edit to Francisco Menéndez (black soldier)

Please start a discussion on Talk:Francisco Menéndez (black soldier) before editing the article again. Avoid edit warring. Please see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which offers advice on how to manage disputes that many of us support. Abstracts are not considered good sources because they often leave out important details. You seem intent on blaming the British for Menéndez's enslavement, which may be a point-of-view issue. As I say, please discuss the change(s) you want to make and wait for a consensus to form on the talk page to so. As it stands, there are two of us who have reverted your edits. Donald Albury 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to acknowledge that he was subjected to enslavement by the British, a claim substantiated by the provided references. I kindly request that further reversions of this content be avoided, as it has escalated into an edit war. Should you wish to propose any modifications, please ensure that you provide corresponding references to support your claims, and refrain from repeatedly reverting my contributions. I’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to look over the references I’m sharing, starting with this one and this one ! Your insights would mean a lot. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Francisco Menéndez (black soldier)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Francisco Menéndez (black soldier), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just fixed it! 194.38.172.194 (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ^SMason_Garrison 21:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francisco Menéndez (black soldier). 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. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YesI'mOnnFire. This user is undoing all my edits without even giving a reason 194.38.172.194 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m at a loss here. It’s frustrating to see someone trying to rewrite history on their own terms without offering any solid explanations. I’m really disappointed with the Wikipedia system and how it allows these kinds of bully users to thrive. It’s disheartening when the integrity of information is compromised like this. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really should take this to the talk page. Most of the edits that you have added are being questioned in the talk page, and you haven't truly addressed them or replied to the editors.

I will revert the latest good version before you two started to edit, please start a discussion in the talk page. I will try to persuade him to try to discuss this with you, alright? 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! I’ll make sure to include as many references as I can. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Unconstructive edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Afro–Latin Americans. 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. Lewisguile (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in colonial Spanish America

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Slavery in colonial Spanish America. 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. As this is not the first time you have been warned about this issue, you may need to brush up on the relevant policy before making further edits to the same pages. Where there is disagreement, you should always attempt to reach consensus on the talk page. I have also commented on the page in question, so feel free to join in the discussion there. When there is edit warring, or a dispute between editors, it's common practice to rollback the article to its last "stable" state (i.e., before you began editing it). This isn't siding with anyone, but to ensure any subsequent changes have consensus. Lewisguile (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite disappointed in you IP. After I left some dummy edits, which deliberately told that 'improving the article after the discussion ', you just jump right back into readding the content that you have been repeatedly reverted without reaching any consensus in the corresponding talk page.

Please, next time, try to reach any consensus before you repeatedly add information that other editors disagree with. Hopefully the 2-week block will help you come to your senses.

PS: At least I am glad that you actually tried to discuss with other editors instead of ignoring my advice. Really hope that you can continue contributing to Wikipedia. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitchell. Please let me know what have I done wrong? Thank you. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked? @HJ Mitchell 194.38.172.194 (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

unjustified blocking

Decline reason:

Duplicate request placed in a section header. All edits should be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic" to edit this page. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

unjustified blocking

Decline reason:

This block is absolutely justified. This IP has been the source of extensive disruption. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2024 (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 is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.