User talk:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa

May 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Balmis Expedition—because it 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Balmis Expedition. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For you vandalism for me to be more thorough in the description. If you have the time, please expand the information from the article in Spanish or French as it has many more explanations and references. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Spanish language in the Philippines[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Spanish language in the Philippines, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 12:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Bayano[edit]

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 14:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Islam in Panama[edit]

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 15:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Black Legend (Spain) have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Black Legend (Spain) was changed by JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.850511 on 2023-06-05T11:38:26+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Extraterrestrial life 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. Cambalachero (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your info is irrelevant. Thank you JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to mention Columbus JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Extraterrestrial life 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.
Your deletion is not accepted by the majority of editors. Please stop now. Thank you David J Johnson (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of editors means you. It is irrelevant to mention Columbus' phrase and you know it. It is an unnecessary waste of space. It is also unnecessary to dispute over this trifle, so I will not delete the quote again. 31.164.92.96 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of largest empires, you may be blocked from editing. This source does not say that the Spanish Empire reached its maximum extent in the year 1638 on page 109, as you falsely claim. TompaDompa (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) – Amended as per below. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing and not looking the citation properly. Page 109: "el Imperio de la Monarquía Católica o Hispánica entre 1580 y 164068, con la incorporación de Portugal y sus territorios ultramarinos, alcanzaría en torno a los 24 millones de km² de soberanía formal efectiva en todos los continentes, sin contar con otros territorios de soberanía formal nominal o conceptual." JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally omitted a few words above, now added in underlined formatting. As evidenced from the quote you copied from the source, the source doesn't say anything about the year 1638, specifically. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested: https://atlashispano.blogspot.com/2020/05/comparativa-entre-los-imperios-espanol.html JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not particularly interested in a blog or indeed any source that lends credence to the idea that maritime claims should be counted, something no serious scholar on the topic does. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As my citation is valid I was just sharing some extra info for you. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing and not looking the citation properly. Page 109: "el Imperio de la Monarquía Católica o Hispánica entre 1580 y 1640-68, con la incorporación de Portugal y sus territorios ultramarinos, alcanzaría en torno a los 24 millones de km² de soberanía formal efectiva en todos los continentes, sin contar con otros territorios de soberanía formal nominal o conceptual." JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you is not vandalism, and I have looked at your (non-reliable in this context) WP:THESIS source on a completely different topic, which allows me to point out that you rather conspicuously left out the beginning of the quote: El Imperio Hispánico, que en una de sus versiones más amplias e inclusivas, al abarcar históricamente territorios coloniales portugueses, está en el origen genealógico de la secuencia histórica que desemboca en la Comunidad Iberoamericana de Naciones y en el espacio panibérico o paniberófono, también es objeto de diferentes interpretaciones en ese sentido. Desde una perspectiva puntual y sincrónica, el Imperio de la Monarquía Católica o Hispánica [...] (omitted portion of the quote underlined by me). TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states synchronous time therefore stop vandalizing my quote and accept the truth. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of largest empires. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 20:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are disqualifying my citation by giving false information. On page 109 it clearly states that the area was 24 M km2. Stop vandalising information by monopolising information and misrepresenting it or you will be reported for vandalism. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Saint Helena. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please familiarise yourself with MOS:OVERLINK. DDMS123 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the hyperlink to Spain as he was spanish. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with MOS:OVERLINK. Even one of the examples listed on that guideline is that "Spanish should not be linked". I suggest reading the guideline before unnecessarily reverting which is adding guideline violations into a page. DDMS123 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Saint Helena, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. DDMS123 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DDMS123 you are right I did not apply the Manual of Style thanks for pointing it out. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. You've edited logged out at several articles, eg New Laws and your talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just have one account and all I have published is completely based with references. If you have a problem with my content then please read the references. Thanks JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been editing logged out. For our purposes that counts as a second account. Sources are not an issue in this case. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I did not realize I was logged out. In any case all I have edited is backed up with references. Thnks JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iberian Union. 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. Please have a look at what you do. You are breaking file links. Please undo yourself and start a discussion on the article talk page. Sam Sailor 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond, please? Sam Sailor 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. Why are you erasing my references? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop accusing editors of lying and vandalism[edit]

See WP:Vandalism for our use of the word. If you are sure it is vandalism, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If this behavior continues I am likely to block you. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, if this is the way you have to spread knowledge then it means you are not helping wikipedia users to get closer to the truth. What are you complaining about? I have provided references for all my content. Thank you. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you not to call editors liars or vandals has nothing to do with "if this is the way you have to spread knowledge then it means you are not helping wikipedia users to get closer to the truth.", whatever that means. What does it mean? It appears you don't understand my post, and that's a worry as it suggests you may continue the same behavior. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I haven't accused anyone of lying. Please do not put words on me I never wrote. TompaDompa has charged me with being a vandal firsthand, and I proved with evidence I am not. Please let me know if you still need help. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug small correction I did not call anyone a liar but to be lying about the reference I provided. Which in the case in question has been the case. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not proved him to be a liar. As I said, don’t do it again. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug he accused me to be a liar, a vandal and several other things. Please check the talk page JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, then report him. Don't use him as an excuse. And I'm serious, I will block you if you continue to say people are lying and vandalising. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Iberian Union) for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. Why am I blocked if I have provided references and Tercer is just erasing my content? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Tercer is undoing my work and my references without giving a reason why he is doing so and not responding to my messages. To top it off, I am the one being blocked. Justice please. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, hence the block. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

NEMO CONDEMNATUS NISI AUDITUS VEL VOCATUS JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (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.

Excuse me but he was edit warring. He was the one editing my content without giving any reason and not replying to my messages. Can you please review? PhilKnight {{unblock}}

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).

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

Request reason:

Accused without reviewing what happened. @Tercer erased my content and my references without giving a reason furthermore I tried to contact him without success JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:GAB and WP:EW and the messages on this page. What someone else does is not relevant regarding whether "blocked from editing from certain pages (Iberian Union) for a period of 1 week for edit warring" was justified. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2023 (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.

You were reverted by three editors, not one. You also have warnings about editwarring on other articles. You should consider yourself fortunate I only gave you a short block from one article. In hindsight I believe I should have done more. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion, please check because there are not reference for all those statements. Please note that no comment should be made without a reference. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Slavery 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. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie I have used the talk page so I have not violated any rule. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa You are not showing any understanding of why you were blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why? Explain it to me because as far as I am concerned I haven't broken any rule. You are being completely unfair. I have used the talk page before doing anything with no reply so why am I not showing any understanding. Maybe it is you that you are not showing any understanding because the rules are quite clear and I have applied all of them. A statement without a reference is just fiction and this is what I am trying to change a statement that is just fake. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are now blocked sitewide. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 ~~~~}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I have used the talk page and I have been blocked without any reason ~~~~}} JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have used the talk page before doing anything

Decline reason:

Have you read WP:GAB and WP:EW and the messages on this page yet? Using the talk page does not exempt you from being blocked for editwarring. That you don't understand the reasons is concerning and suggests that when the block expires your behavior is likely to continue, leading to another and much longer block, even an indefinite one. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 29 June 2023 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]