|
User talk:CortadorWelcome Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.
If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages. Where next?
See alsoGood luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation
Your submission at Articles for creation
Your submission at Articles for creation
Nomination of Magedoom for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magedoom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magedoom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 5Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extra Ordinary (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
January 2021 Your recent editing history at List of video games notable for negative reception 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. JOEBRO64 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)  You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
November 2022
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
May 2023You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Boris Johnson) 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
If you reinstate disputed material about living people without a consensus (in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE), you may be topic banned from editing about living people, or blocked from editing. It does not matter whether this is done using three or four reverts; two are sufficient and even one can be a policy violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)  Cortador (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I did not reinstate disputed material. The disputed material was an unqualified statement that Johnson has seven children (and was tagged as such), despite multiple reliable sources stating that he has "at least" seven children. The disputed material was reinstated by User:DeFacto and User:CzelloCortador (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Decline reason: You were edit warring on that biography. The block is clearly necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC) 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.
CS1 error on Boris Johnson
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) 08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC) BBC RequestHi Cortador. My name is Marco Silva and I am a senior journalist with BBC News in London. I noticed how much you contributed to the article about Sultan Al Jaber. Is there any chance we can chat in private? I have a couple of questions for you about this article and about the editing work you have been doing. To be crystal clear: I am not looking for an interview, just an off-the-record chat. Please let me know your thoughts when you have a moment. Many thanks. MarcoSilvaUK (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
"Hi!" - Please: Use the Informations i gave, instead revert all generally, thankyou! I don't have the time & the knowledge to do the things here as you want, "sorry!". Gentle: Hungchaka (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) MisrepresentationPlease do not misrepresent my posts, as you did here. I was not
September 2023This edit summary includes a quite explicit assumption of bad faith. The editor already said their edit was based on a specific and expressed reasoning, but you directly imply that their real reasoning was something else "
Financial ties to Russian oligarchsKia ora @Cortador. Just want to say thanks again for restoring the edits I made to the page for the Conservative Party (UK). As you can see here, the user Czello left me a message threatening to block me, after I tried reaching out to him to get him to come to the talk page. Bit irritiating. Aubernas (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
edit warYour 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. Note although this is a 3rr warning the page is (in fact) under 1RR, you have reverted more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
My last word here, you have been warned, if you revert again I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cortador, regarding this talk page discussion that you have started, could you add a proposal for specific wording to be added into the article? Having closed the previous discussion as without consensus, I believe it would lead to a more lasting outcome if specific text was proposed to be included in the article, which can then be approved or rejected by consensus. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Source titlesIn this edit, you added a source[1] but the title you added in the "title=" parameter does not match the title actually used in the source.[2] Repeatedly doing this could be construed as disruptive. Please take care to accurately reflect the content and titles of sources in the references. Cheers. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
References
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add AfD duplicate voteHi, I hope you'll forgive me, I've struck your last !vote at AfD/Hohem as you'd already !voted delete. This isn't an attempt at suppressing your point of view. It's just that when people !vote several times, it gets harder for the closing admin to assess the consensus. Best wishes, Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Third opinionI have requested a third opinion regarding the disagreement at Talk:Cook Partisan Voting Index Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Avoid commenting on editorsCortador, I know you have been given a contentious topics warning. Please avoid commenting on editors as you have been doing in our recent discussions. When you shift from commenting on my arguments to commenting on my understandings you are no longer WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Republican party articleI empathize with your positions here, and I see that we agree on certain issues. I think your time will be better served avoiding the back and forth with other editors. I can certainly relate to your frustrations, but sometimes the best thing to do is to disengage if you know it's not likely to have any effect on swaying opinion or increasing consensus. Let's focus on improving the Far right section and try to keep it condensed down to what is DUE, with a few short sentences. We have a good start, we just need to be patient and open minded. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick suggestion. I would not try to hold any other editor's hands and explain policies or walk them through justifications, at least not more than once. Sometimes it's OK to stop engaging if an editor clearly and simply can't or won't acknowledge things. Constantly going back and forth on tangents tends to distract from where the discussion is supposed to go. Focus on your arguments and which sources say what, and how it affects the article. Avoid discussions that tend to end up in WP:BATTLE and WP:LAWYER territory. Not that you are doing anything wrong, I also struggle with these issues myself, but I wanted to let you know that sort of thing happens, and can create unnecessary stress. I like to remind myself I do not control consensus, I simply abide by it. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) The tag isn't appropriate so there's nothing to replace it with. If you disagree, fine, but take it to the talk page and/or bring in an RfC &c. to show me how wrong I am. In any case, if there's an issue with any fact in the article, tag that but it is cited, so "needs cites" is definitely the wrong template for whatever the problem is you see. (For Mount Qianliyan, btw, yeah, fair enough. There are cites on that article but, yeah, they should be replaced with a higher quality source so the template fits, kinda. For Qianliyan Island, no, they're journalistic and scholarly sources already and there's no actual problem with them as far as I can see. You're welcome to explain the issue on the talk page, ofc.) — LlywelynII 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Despite the scary tag, I posted there already that I saw you finally engaging on the talk page. Hopefully you keep things there and that whole bit blows over. — LlywelynII 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) April 2024Your recent editing history at Ginni Thomas 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) ANI
Partial blockYou have been blocked from editing Ginni Thomas for a period of one month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}. El_C 05:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Help on a requestHi @Cortador, I am a Conflict of Interest editor who has made a request at Talk:Sultan Al Jaber where you have previously weighed in on other discussions. I wondered if you might like to assess the changes I have proposed? Thank you in advance! Dedemocha (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
In case you didn't knowYou're in media:[5][6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024Your recent editing history at Republican Party (United States) 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. Toa Nidhiki05 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
RSP questionHi Cortador. I’m looking for input on the right way to add a source to RSP following an RfC. I’m writing to you because you are active on RSP. An MMA blog called Bloody Elbow has been determined to be generally unreliable prior to March 2024. There has been an RfC and two previous discussions:[9], [10], [11]. Based on my reading, Bloody Elbow now meets the formal WP:RSPCRITERIA but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination and if they agree, implement the RSP. I would do it myself but I am a COI editor who represents an MMA league, ONE Championship, that’s been frequently written about in the blog. This blog is so unreliable that when new owners took over in March 2024 and turned it into a reliable news source with reporters, editors and fact checking, they deleted the entire 14 year archive of blog posts. Despite a discussion on RSN going back 12 years that the blog was not reliable, Bloody Elbow has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, including on most of the significant pages about MMA. Without the visibility of the RSP, I think the misuse of this blog will remain pervasive. Bloody Elbow’s reinvention by new owners as a reliable source is going to add to the confusion. People will think that that old blog content has the credibility of the new reliable news source, or - conversely - that the new source is generally unreliable because it used to be a blog. A delineation on RSP will very much help with the confusion. Do you have any guidance on how I can bring this to the attention of the right editors? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Personal attackPlease strike this comment as it violates CIVIL [12]. Springee (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit warOn top of violating bold, revert, discuss by continuing to revert your contested edit back (see: edit warring), you give me a template warning (don't template the regulars) to warn me about edit warring? Dude. You're the one who started this. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC) November 2024
Points to note:
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. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC) ArbCom 2024 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Hi Cortador, I saw that you AfD'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea on 20 October. You stated that Adding to this: depending on the outcome of this AfD, I'll nominate List of wars involving South Korea as well. However, this the arguments for and against that will pretty much be the same as the ones here, I didn't want to split the debate, and just nominated this page for now. That seems a good idea. It was indeed deleted on 3 November, and redirected to List of wars involving Korea#North Korea afterwards. Are you planning on nominating List of wars involving South Korea for deletion / redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea next? If not, I'll be happy to do it in your stead if you prefer. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
|
