User talk:Capleri

Capleri, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Capleri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a first ever, being blocked for correcting a falsehood and stating the truth.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a first ever, being blocked for correcting a falsehood and stating the truth: Eurasia IS NOT a continent and much less under a five continent model which includes America, Asia, Africa, Europe and Oceania.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked, which was for edit-warring. It does indeed look like you were edit-warring. Yamla (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (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.

The first source listed for the 5 continent model actually lists 6, "The continents include Eurasia (conventionally regarded as two continents, Europe and Asia), Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica." I can't access the other 2 sources. Given that the Olympic 5 is just a modification of the "6 continent combined Americas model" and no other sources seem to be available for a different 5, I removed this line and combined the Olympic 5 note with the "6 continent combined Americas" note.--Khajidha (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the five continent model is dumb. This model is one of the most used.

1) It's not ignored, it's mentioned as a modification of the 6 continent combined Americas model. 2)Where is it used outside of the Olympic flag? --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as mentioned before, one of the sources you are using for the 5 continent system actually lists 6 continents. You CANNOT use that source to support that system.--Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring it in the table. Then just edit that source.

1) There's no need for a line in the table that is just like another line, except without one bit. 2) I have no idea if the other sources support your version, as I cannot access them. 3) Even in the Olympic 5 continent system, Antarctica is not considered part of Oceania the way your version of the table shows. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antartica is uninhabited you doofus, that's why it's not considered!! The five continent model is the most widely used in the world, you should be ashamed of your ignorance. It's even here on the very same page ignoramus https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continente#Modelos_continentales

I know it's uninhabited. I know that's why it's not considered. And I sincerely doubt that the 5 continent model is the most widely used. But all of that is irrelevant. My point is that you cannot have the name Oceania covering 2 columns in the 5 continent system as Antarctica is not considered part of Oceania. And you certainly cannot support anything about a 5 continent system using a source that speaks of 6 continents.--Khajidha (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit the source as I said and edit the table so it looks nice then LOL. You're like a child that needs the table to look symmetric only, but not right.

It's your job to use correct sources and format the table properly for what you add. The mention of the 5 continent model as a modification of the 6 continent combined Americas model seemed to have support from other users. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...other users who also happen to be wrong. What source are you saying is wrong? What number?

Using IPs to edit war while you're blocked for edit warring will usually result in a permanent indefinite block. Please stop. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting stupidity on Wikipedia idiot? The five continent model is the most used since it uses inhabited areas.

It's not an excuse for breaking the rules of WP. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's more important: The rules or facts?

The thing is that is your take on the facts. Other people have different views. That is why there are talk pages to find a common ground. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the rules is what allows editors to have disagreements without simply just reverting every edit they disagree with for whatever the reason, and that would just be a huge mess. Anyone can claim they have facts, but if they can't support those facts with verifiable, reliable sources, then no one will accept their claims. You also need to be civil. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I said, 1) your first source doesn't match your data and 2) Antarctica is not part of Oceania in that system. Those are two things you have gotten wrong, so you are not posting facts. --Khajidha (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 for the ignorant: Van Loon's Geography: The Story of the World We Live In, 1932, Simon and Schuster Source 2 for the ignorant: http://web.archive.org/web/20110822175428/http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1303.pdf It is the other users who undid edits, were they blocked also? On top of that, undoing stated facts. AGAIN: Antarctica isn't inhabited, therefore not included in the 5 continent model.

On the Antarctica point: then you should not be using the table to show it as part of Oceania. Leave that column blank.--Khajidha (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:31, 8 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wow. I thought Wikipedia was a more reputable outfit. Being blocked twice for stating a FACT! A five continent model in fact DOES exist. I'm merely adding it while someone is deleting it.

Decline reason:

Again, you were clearly edit warring and your unblock request does not address this. I think you were lucky not to get a longer block. BethNaught (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I sure as hell hope you also blocked the person deleting the fact that a five continent model exists which is ridiculous!! The five continent model is the most used in the world! Your OWN PAGE STATES IT https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continente#Modelos_continentales it's ridiculous that i have to keep explaining this to you. You should be ashamed of you ignorance while attempting to manage an encyclopedia!!

Decline reason:

You are really not paying attention to the reason you are blocked, and arguing about your preferred content is not what you should be doing here - admins can not adjudicate in your content dispute. The issue is that when you face a content disagreement, you must not edit war, not even if you are right. Everyone thinks they're right, don't they? So where would we be if we allowed disputes to be addressed by edit warring? You need to stop edit warring and start a discussion on the appropriate talk page to seek a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am right, this is not rocket science. The five continent model which states only inhabited continents is in fact the most used. Do you need to source that 2+2=4 or that the US has 50 states? This is just stupid.

Decline reason:

You have still failed to address the stated reason for your block, edit warring. You have also obviously logged out to continue your edit war, so I have added a week to your original block for block evasion. ~~I suggest that you stick to the reasons for your block in your next unblock request or you risk having your talk page access revoked.~~ Revoked by another admin per message below —DoRD (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (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.

Please note that these IPs, here and here, have made the same edits to Continent after this user was blocked, with similar edit summaries. Both IPs locate to the same city. The article has since been semi-protected. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Capleri that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the block to 72 hours. Using IPs to make the same edit is not a clever idea. This is not about who is right or wrong, something I have no opinion on, but that you are edit warring. Being right does not mean you get a free pass on edit warring. After your block expires instead of making the same edit take it to the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to add that if I see any more personal attacks here, I'll be revoking your ability to edit this page for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I warned you, yet you carried on with your attacks, so you can not now edit this page until your block expires. When you are unblocked, take your sources to the article talk page and discuss it there, not here, and be sure to do it without attacking other editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Continent, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "this is ONE model of several you idiot" is not an appropriate way of addressing any other WIkipedia editor. You have been previously warned concerning civility and personal attacks. General Ization ^Talk 16:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are risking an indefinite block[edit]

Hello Capleri. You have just come off a ten-day block for edit warring, and now you are back at Continent, the scene of a prior edit war. I am thinking of permanently blocking your account from Wikipedia under WP:NOTHERE. But I'll give you a chance to offer to follow policy first. You will need to promise to stop edit warring, make no more edits at Continent, and refrain from personal attacks. Let me know. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHY THE FUCK AM I THE ONE AT RISK, I AM STATING A CORRECT CONTINENTAL MODEL, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PARTY WHO REPEATEDLY DELETES FACTS FROM THE PAGE!

See WP:Consensus, which tells you how to proceed over a content disagreement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did so, but they keep warring and deleting posts which are in fact true. The five continent model is widely used even if these dumbfucks ignore it.

As you are continuing with the personal attacks, I have again revoked your ability to edit this talk page. Should you continue with the same aggressive approach when your block expires, your next will be indefinite. If you wish to appeal your current block, please use WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest block is for this and for resuming your edit warring and battleground approach - I'm not as nice as EdJohnston when it comes to sanctioned editors who pursue their disputes via bludgeoning and via personal attacks rather than following the consensus approach that the project demands. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Continent 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. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in an edit war? What about those that delete actual information?

February 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Continent. 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 ~~~~}}.

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. BethNaught (talk) 18:27, 2 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I sure hope you blocked those that were warring with me, but I know you didn't. Trust me, there is a widely used 5 continent model (I provided evidence also) and deleting it is the height of ignorance. It is simply ridiculous that these views are allowed. No wonder wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything.

Decline reason:

As was stated to you over and over and over again, you MUST gather a consensus. It's obvious in your unblock request you refuse to do so, and as such this request is declined. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 2 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I repeat: Sources were provided and arbitrarily discarded. If you think a 5 continent model is imaginary, wikipedia is in serious trouble. No wonder it is not a reliable source for anything.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is not to be used to continue to try to edit war. As you continue to keep edit warring, and refuse to acknowledge the reason for your block, I am also restricting talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 2 February 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 repeat: Sources were provided and arbitrarily discarded. If you think a 5 continent model is imaginary, wikipedia is in serious trouble. No wonder it is not a reliable source for anything. And I repeat, on behalf of pretty much everyone else above, you are still not addressing the reason for your block. You have been edit warring against consensus, and insisting that your version was the truth, but you refuse to gain consensus for your change on the talk page. If you continue on with the same attitude, you have little chance of ever being unblocked. —DoRD (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat: the model you mention is covered in the notes below the table. "The six-continent combined-America model is used in France and its former colonies, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania,[citation needed] Latin America,[24] and Greece.[14] A five-continent model is obtained from this model by excluding Antarctica as uninhabited. This is used, for example in the United Nations[25] and in the Olympic Charter.[26]" Consensus was that there was no need for a separate line in the table that would be the same as the one above it only with the Antarctica box left blank. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]