User talk:NoGringo

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Communications in the Philippines, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this vandal warning tag from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Communications in the Philippines was changed by NoGringo (c) (t) deleting 14249 characters on 2007-08-09T15:21:27Z. Thank you. ClueBot 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Telephone numbering in Ecuador, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Telephone numbering in Chile, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would likely be interested that a thread has been started about you here:[1] regarding potential copyright violations. You contribution would be welcome. -Chunky Rice 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you start using edit summaries. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed. Also, when reusing content from existing articles (like you've done with Telephone numbering in Europe), you need to indicate where you copied the content for GFDL compliance reasons. Stating that in the edit summary will 1) prevent confusion with other editors as happened in this case where people thought you were copying from an external site; and 2) maintains our GFDL requirements. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a tool by interiot, which analises edits.

 run at Wed Aug 15 12:28:23 2007 GMT
 <table class=months>
 <tr><td class=date>2007/8   <td>273
 <td><div class=green style='width:456px'></div>
 <div class=red   style='width:43px'></div>
 </table>

It counted "edits with summary" : "edits without" = 456:43. Sorry that in some case I did not use it. I will also follow your advice if I copy from one place to another. I don't understand the thing with GFDL, because with how many words copied from one place to another one needs to cite the internal source? But I understand that in my case it would have been better. (See below that I did use edit summary in the source article and was accused of vandalism by a bot.) For the thing with the so called external site: This external site clearly states that itself is a copy of Wikipedia.

I also see that there are allegations that "User:NoGringo" a newish user created several hundred articles. The above mentioned tool clearly shows that unique pages edited were 204, i.e. because I also edited existing pages, e.g. for fixing redirects, the new pages must be below 200. Maybe the number is also below 100. One also has to take into account that a lot of the page creations were results of page moves.

On the "incidents"-page some makes the assumption that I engage in linkspamming. But IIRC I did not insert any new link, and those that I put via copy-paste, did all go to different domains, and those were IIRC mostly official government sites.

In an edit summary I was accused of vandalism. There I used the edit summary as you requested ("seperate article") when I tried to split an article.

Also when I splitted, someone came along adding templates, stating the content does not belong to Wikipedia. But he did not go to say this to the page where I copied it from.

I find all these first encounters very unfriendly. - Beside yours! (add: and the one from Chunky Rice) Best regards NoGringo 13:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL requires attribution of who actually wrote the text. When you copy text from one article to another, there needs to be a comment in the history of the new article of where it came from. Otherwise, it looks like you wrote the text when you didn't and that violates the GFDL requirements.

The anti-vandalism bots occasionally make mistakes. Delete content from articles is a common vandalism and it's not easy for them to detect when it's valid and when it's not. Sometimes they get it wrong.

As for the rest, just ignore it. People sometimes overreact. Unfortunately, we get a lot of vandalism, copyright violations, and spamming which makes people extra sensitive. It's blown over now.

-- JLaTondre 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for your reply. I "googled" a little bit in the notice board about vandalism. I that User:FayssalF writes: "Digwuren, you stop that behavior of calling others vandals immediately or you'll find yourself at the bench again." Digwuren did so in the edit summary. I find this a double standard. At one hand, you ask me to simple ignore when I got called vandal by a bot, who is known to make errors(!), and on the other hand people are threatened with block. To accuse people of things they did not, is not very nice.

If as you say you get "a lot of vandalism, copyright violations, and spamming which makes people extra sensitive" - maybe this could be reduced by stopping to call well meant edits which are none of the three things, like it was done with my edits. And then concentrate on fighting real vandalism, real copyright violations, real spam? I wonder how many users were treated like me, and how many left the project for that reason. Unfair treatment and false allegations are simply not good. Maybe when done with the telecommunication I will leave Wikipedia. I am not happy with unfairness. You see, no one of the two users that made false allegation/defamatory assumptions (User:Jddphd, User:The Evil Spartan) said something like "sorry". They will probably go on attacking new users or old users. And turning them away from the project. NoGringo 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't think these deserve separate articles, but if you create one and move the info from another article there, it's more or less incumbent upon you to reduce the information in the original article to a summary. Otherwise you're just creating a content fork. Which, now that I glance at your edit history, is apparently what you've done, creating a massive wave of content forks and leaving other editors to actually do the work of fixing everything. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge there's no Wikiproject Censorship where you could have proposed and discussed such widespread changes, so I'm not even sure how you could have proposed this beforehand. At any rate I'm considering nominating Internet censorship in Iran for deletion as a content fork, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if other editors did the same across some of your other recent article creations. Ford MF 01:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took me 30 seconds to reduce it. [2] Once when I reduced an article my edit was called vandalism by a bot [3]. Now, when I don't, you tell me of content forking and want to delete my work and tell me you would not be surprised if other authors did the same. And you tell me of widespread changes that I have made and "a massive wave of content forks and leaving other editors to actually do the work of fixing everything". I looked at Category:Internet censorship by country and of the currently 12 articles I found I have created six (Cuba, Singapore, Tunisia, Iran, Thailand, United Kingdom). My focus was on making the internet censorship content better accesible, that's why I created the by-country-category and the individual articles which I also put in Country and Internet categories if existend. NoGringo 02:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedily deleted this article under criterion WP:CSD#G11, "blatant advertising". The reason why I did this was that the article consists of services, prices and links to vendors from which the services can be obtained. The slower deletion proposal method initially applied, WP:PROD, was applicable on the basis of the notion that wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It would be quite useful if you could compose an article that related the current state of broadband access in Russia based on reliable sources, in an encyclopedic tone and eschewing content that could be misconstrued as soliciting business. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected it. You can do what you want with it. -- John Reaves 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know your edits were in the utmost good faith in moving +44, however, this has caused a lot of problems. To begin with, it should have been moved to +44 (band). This was a difficult move and to be fair, it would have been better to have requested this move. Now all the pages that it linked to have been disrupted. Could you reverse it until the move can be done properly, with the band page moved to +44 (band)? Feel free to discuss this first at my talk page if you would like.

Seraphim ^Whipp 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am already fixing some links. Please join and help. If one day it is moved to +44 (band) this is absolutly fine. But the links that go to +44 have to be changed anyway. Redirect from +44 (2005 band) to +44 (band) is no problem. There are anyway 7 or so different names for the band. NoGringo 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I know, the amount of names for the band are ridiculous, however it took months to reach consensus that it should be +44 instead of the other numerous ones. The 2005 part seems a bit extraneous. I'm not really sure how to do it exactly. How would I go about moving it from +44 (2005 band) to +44 (band)? Also, thanks for responding in a positive way...I never really know how comments about difficult situations will be interpreted.

Seraphim ^Whipp 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need an admin. I will ask John. Same to you, thank you for the positive interaction. :-) NoGringo 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, :-).

Seraphim ^Whipp 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of, let me know if you need anything else. -- John Reaves 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Telephone numbering, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Telephone numbering has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Telephone numbering, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 05:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When you moved List of North American area codes and replaced it with a disambiguation page, you left an awful lot of articles pointing to the wrong place. If you have a few moments, could you please go through this list of ambiguous links and update them to point at List of NANP area codes. Thanks a million! Ewlyahoocom 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one more template Template:Area code footer, let's see what is left over. Otherwise this is a task for WP:BOT. NoGringo 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait? Have your bot fix them now, please. Ewlyahoocom 15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you a Gringo?" I'm not sure what my ethnicity has to do with anything! In any case, since you're the one who broke all those links -- don't you think you should be the one to fix them? Ewlyahoocom 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Gringo's are espicially pushing and aggressive. This is a collaborative project, respect this. STOP PUSHING OTHER USERS. NoGringo 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NoGringo, you have a habit of making sweeping changes and not following through with the maintenance and repair chores that these changes create, so acting disingenuous, like, "Wikipedia is collaborative! Anyone can clean up my mess!" is maybe not the best way to stay on cordial terms with your fellow editors. And inquiring about someone's national or ethnic background because "Gringos are espicially [sic] pushing and aggressive" is a borderline violation of WP:NPA. So please cool it. Ford MF 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out that these were mandated by {{Infobox country}}, so restored them all. Sorry for any confusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from telephone number has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]