User talk:Pedro8790

This edit request to World War I and World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user Pedro8790 (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion in respect of naming here. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been moving some articles to capitalized titles (and moving some back). Per MOS:CAPS, you should have evidence of pretty consistent capitalization in sources as a reason to treat a phrase as a proper name before doing this. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have placed a protection template on this article without going through the appropriate steps. The only editors who can place a protection template or change the level of protection on an article are administrators or sysops. If you think this article needs a higher level of protection than its present level of semi-protection then you must file a request for page protection - editors who are not admins cannot place a protection template on an article on their own. Shearonink (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BusterD. An edit that you recently made to Union blockade seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pedro8790. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pedro8790. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Game of Thrones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. -- (Radiphus) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:23, 20 January 2018 (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 notice boards.
• 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 United States, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Communism. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the changes; 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. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Communism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. -- Radiphus 19:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Radiphus. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Communism 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 Help Desk. Thanks. -- Radiphus 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Template:Authoritarian types of rule. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Radiphus 11:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Authoritarian types of rule. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. -- Radiphus 11:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Communism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. -- Radiphus 11:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro8790, you should probably comment at the noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Communism. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you're edit on socialist state, and next time I will start a discussion on communist state.. But to answer you're question, every existing socialist state has been a Marxist–Leninist socialist state. Its not up for discussion; its true.--TIAYN (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pedro8790. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that the hammer and sickle doesn't represent the non-Leninist currents of communism, such as anarcho-communism and classical Marxism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Template:Communism sidebar. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the changes; 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. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm curious what your rationale was for this edit. As far as I can tell my tweaks didn't change appearance, but made the HTML more valid and replaced HTML with wiki markup, which is generally preferred. Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the changes. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are going to hit "revert" a couple of times (as in Adolf Hitler), you really need to explain why you're making those changes. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked you for persistently and abusively editing while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not a Sockpuppeteer, I do edit a lot when I logged out (If this is against the rules and counts as sockpuppetting, I didn't know and I sincerely apologize for it), but my edits are well intentioned, both when I logged in and out, and not abusive, if I did anything wrong, it certainly did not warrant an indefinite block.

Decline reason:

You're evading a long-term block on one of your IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's not my fault that my IPs constantly change, I would like to know what I should do in order to avoid this from happening again in case I'm unblocked.

Decline reason:

In case you're unblocked, to avoid this happening again, always edit logged in. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand the situation better now, I promise I will avoid this from happening again, once again I'm not a Sockpuppeteer (if editting while logged out counts as Sockpuppetting, I didn't know and I apologize for this), my intentions on Wikipedia have always been constructive, I want to contribute to this project as much as I can, I have no malicious intentions here.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Once again, I was not aware that editing while logged out counts as sockpuppetting, if that is indeed the case, then I genuinely apologize for it, it was not my intention to be a sockpuppeteer, I promise though, that, if my account is unblocked, I will only edit while logged on, this way, sockpuppetting situations will be avoided, and also, I will be held more accountable for possible violations of rules by me.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2019 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #27149 was submitted on Oct 15, 2019 07:17:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #27329 was submitted on Oct 27, 2019 20:24:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I reiterate what I said before, though I would also add that I had the opportunity and the temptation to edit while logged out many times since I was blocked, but I didn't do so, because I'm committed to following Wikipedia rules, so I ask the admins to, please, unblock me.

Decline reason:

You were asked in your last unblock appeal by Yamla to substantially re-word your next unblock appeal. All you have done is reiterate what you said before. There is no new information and I honestly do not believe that you understand what you did wrong. 5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2019 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #27354 was submitted on Oct 28, 2019 23:45:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #27430 was submitted on Nov 02, 2019 21:02:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok, first of all, it was not my intention to be a sockpuppeteer, I apologize for this and I also promise that, if my account is unblocked, I will only edit while using it, this way, I will also be kept more accountable for possible violations of Wikipedia rules, also my edits were well intentioned, however, I did engage in edit warring, and I shouldn't have done so, I promise that I will attempt to avoid engaging in edit warring or any other behavior that can be considered abusive, and that I will attempt to solve disputes through discussion, I want to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I can, and I hope that the admins will allow me to edit again.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2019 (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).

Pedro8790 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It was not my intention to be a sockpuppeteer, I apologize for this, I also promise that, if my account is unblocked, I will only edit while logged on, and I will also be kept more accountable for possible violations of Wikipedia rules this way, I also promise that I will attempt to avoid engaging in edit warring or any behavior that can be considered abusive, I will attempt to solve disputes through discussion, my edits were well intentioned, and I recognize that I shouldn't have engaged in edit warring, I want to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I can, and also, I'm committed to following Wikipedia rules, since I was blocked I refused to edit anonymously despite having the opportunity to do so, I'm also willing to answer any question from the admins I can, in order to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

I decline this unblock request on the merits. Your unblock requests are manifestly unconvincing and you are unable or unwilling to substantially reword them. On that basis, I have revoked talk page access. I suggest you may apply no sooner than six months after today, under the terms of WP:SO via WP:UTRS. You will need a substantially different unblock request at that time. Yamla (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2019 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I wonder if you could review my unblock request, or at least help me in some way, like, what should I do in order to be unblocked? --Pedro8790 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]