User talk:Tren Ligero GDL/Archive 8

Talkarchivenav

Welcome[edit]

Hello Tren ligero gdl and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! clpo13_(talk) 22:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Interstate 215 (California) 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. –Fredddie ™ 22:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Rs chen 7754 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Many of your edits are factually incorrect and/or are breaking templates. Please take greater care when editing - if you do not, you will be blocked. --Rs chen 7754 01:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Rs chen 7754 19:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring graphics[edit]

Please stop restoring those graphics, like you recent did again here. As a colleague noted, you're just adding them to be pretty without adding anything of substance. I'd like to add that by adding them at that size, several times larger than the current graphic at the top of the existing infobox, you're drawing unwarranted attention to them. The fact that I-215 was I-15E or SR 215 in the past is spelled out in the article already, so the graphics are not needed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

Please stop moving pages as you have. In many cases, it's best to propose that a page be moved first for discussion through WP:RM rather than boldly moving pages around. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History interstate 215[edit]

You've been warned about editing Interstate 215 (California). Don't copy and paste into a new page to get around warnings.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the History of interstates page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of History of interstates for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of interstates 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/History of interstates until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Rs chen 7754 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of History of interstates[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on History of interstates, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –Fredddie ™ 17:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mexican Federal Highway 15D[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Mexican Federal Highway 15D requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JDDJS (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mexican Federal Highway 15D[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Mexican Federal Highway 15D, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - GB fan 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upload files[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

i want to upload files but don't want to copy right— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tren Ligero GDL (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, to upload a file, go to the Upload Wizard at Commons. You could also look at the picture on the left to see what you are allowed to upload. Also, what do you mean by you don't want to copyright? Does this mean you don't wish to license it with a Creative Commons (or similar) license? We will be able to give you much more help if you answer those questions. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 19:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: This user is blocked at Commons for copyvios... –Fredddie ™ 21:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Ahh, OK, thank you for telling me. Then @Tren Ligero GDL, you need to refer to the messages left at your talk page on Commons, not here. Seagull123 Φ 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Vulva— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, 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. Serols (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

administraitor[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

What do you need help with? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin-help}}I need to know how to request an adminship to be a wikipedia administrator to make sure nobody meses with protected pagesTren Ligero GDL (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tren Ligero GDL. Please read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. In short, you are a few years and thousands of edits away from having the depth of experience necessary to successfully pass a request to become an administrator. Keep doing good work. Contribute to articles but also work on back-end administration matters. Participate in discussions. Learn about deletion. Help fight vandalism. Target spam. Become a new pages patroller. Participate in Afds, etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Rs chen 7754 00:21, 28 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for abusing multiple accounts I am also sorry but i had no way out i love wikipedia and i need to have an account to be able to edit i know i have done it before but i had no way out and i have been doing this because I have been blocked indefinitely and nobody has accepted my apologies enough to unblock me and I had the chance to change but I was just trying to stay in wikipedia so that I can still contribute to Wikipedia.Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be arguing that we cannot trust you to abide by Wikipedia's policies and so should extend your block from one week to an indefinite block. On the assumption that this isn't what you are arguing about, I encourage you to make another unblock request. There, you'll want to show you didn't in fact use multiple accounts in violation of WP:SOCK or, failing that, that we can be absolutely sure you won't violate our policies again. Yamla (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I Decided to never Use User Tren Ligero GDL or Mexican wiki I was trying to perform A Clean start by abandoning my old acount to avoid harassment and blocks because I Still want to contribute to wikipedia so that I could still be a part of it Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no point in unblocking if you have retired - and please do reconsider when this block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2017 (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.

@Tren Ligero GDL: What is the name of your original (indefinitely blocked) account? Vanjagenije (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have Decided to never Use User Tren Ligero GDL or Mexican wiki I was trying to perform A Clean start by abandoning my old acount to avoid harassment and blocks because I Still want to contribute to wikipedia so that I could still be a part of it and I won't retire Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Stop messing us around with this retired/not retired nonsense. Talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is My original account and its not Blocked. Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account is blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request May 2017[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Not done the page is not protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Requests[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need help to make a request to fully protect my user page Tren Ligero GDL 01:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If we fully protect your user page, then only administrators would be able to edit it (see WP:FULL). That means that you would not be able to edit it. Are you sure that is what you want? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

ok no but can i semi protect it Tren Ligero GDL 14:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the request as not done, even though I'm not an administrator. You stated that there is a high level of IP vandalism, but a basic look at the page history shows that no IP has edited your user page, and in fact, no one but yourself has edited it either. Please be careful in the future to not misstate facts when making requests, intentionally or not. Imzadi 1979 → 18:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Next time you make a frivolous protection request you will be blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post[edit]

I don't know why you posted here, your post has nothing to do with WP:AWB.

As the project founder, I do not have any special role in this matter. You will need to discuss with those editors why they reverted you, rather than continually reinserting your changes. However, if people keep reverting your additions to an article, perhaps you should not continue doing them. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRD. I can say that it is not usual to include an infobox for past designations in an article, and that you cannot use Google Maps to prove that the route is 55.060 miles long.

About your behavior in general - you are very close to being indefinitely blocked. You have violated numerous policies and guidelines: improper sourcing, uploading copyrighted images to Commons, copy-and-paste moves, revert warring, false protection requests, attacking other editors, sockpuppetry. Please read our core policies and guidelines before continuing to edit here. Also, criticism is not the same thing as harassment. --Rs chen 7754 18:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-15E[edit]

Please give up your obsession with I-15E. Your edits are related to I-15 are not constructive and are being treated like vandalism. –Fredddie ™ 21:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Interstate 215 in California, you may be blocked from editing. US 66 does not exist anymore. Rs chen 7754 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Per the definition of WP:Vandalism, this is not vandalism. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vanjagenije: deliberating introducing a falsehood into an article is vandalism. US 66 has not existed in California in almost 38 years, yet Tren Ligero GDL added it to that other article as if it still exists. Imzadi 1979 → 13:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts. 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. 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 ~~~~}}. Rs chen 7754 20:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Please stop emailing me; I will not respond to any of the three. Regardless, I have no idea what you're talking about. –Fredddie ™ 17:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make that four emails now. Para ahora. –Fredddie ™ 17:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be revoking email shortly. --Rs chen 7754 19:17, 6 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The page Macrolibramiento_Sur_De_Guadalajara Along with her shield do Exist.Shield Reference Please do unblock me Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That does not address the reason for your block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I abused multiple acounts to Upload the Shield of The page Macrolibramiento_Sur_De_Guadalajara Along with her shield do Exist.Shield Reference Please do unblock me Im so sorry but I thought it was a Missing link for The Mexican Federal highways.Tren Ligero GDL (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In view of your history, including the fact that you had previously been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, the only thing about this block that might reasonably be subject to review is the fact that it is for such a surprisingly short time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2017 (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.

I have restored the previous declined unblock request, as they should not be removed while you are still blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]