User talk:Jozamba

February 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm LukeSurl. I noticed that you recently removed content from Scoring in association football without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. LukeSurl^{t c} 22:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Scoring in association football, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -NottNott|talk 22:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Scoring in association football, you may be blocked from editing. -NottNott|talk 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page 1994 FIFA World Cup Final, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. On articles written in American English, the correct term for the sport that is officially known in English as "association football" is "soccer". There is no need to change it. Calling it vandalism is simply wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flamemgo is from Brazil and in Brazil association football is called football not soccer. By the way this article used to have football here but someone change. I will ask you once again Walter, Do not change.

i will report you your vandalism and bias. Flamengo is a football team not soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozamba (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is neither vandalism nor bias. The article is written in American English and that's the name of the sport in American English. If you want the language variant changed, discuss it. However, feel free to report my actions, but do read WP:BOOMERANG before you do.

Also, for the record, this warning was for your change to an article about a game played in the United States and does not involve itself with Flamengo. That discussion is below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this bias against the use of the term goes back a while. Please recognize several things:

Wikipedia respects all national variants of English ( WP:LANGVAR))
Some articles have ties to a specific language variant (a FIFA match played in the United States or Canada would use American English, while a FIFA match played in England or Australia)
If no national ties exist, we maintain the language variant that was consistently used in the article's creation (MOS:RETAIN
Native languages for the subject are immaterial. For instance, we always call the nation "Germany" even though the Germans call it Deutschland, which would be correctly translated to English as "German Land". See exonym and endonym for additional details.

If you want to change the language variant (which would include changing "honor" to "honour", "color" to "colour", and other possibly undesirable changes, discuss it on the article's talk page and achieve consensus for the change. You cannot make it unilaterally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing further, thanks for trying to gain support for the LANGVAR discussion, but what you're doing is called Wikipedia:Canvassing. It should not be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Clube de Regatas do Flamengo; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jozamba reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 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 ~~~~}}. Mfield (Oi!) 21:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cease adding unnecessary paragraphs.[edit]

It’s unnecessary. There is also a limit on the number of paragraphs. Rhys Mayall (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be block soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozamba (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on talk page[edit]

Your changes are not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Flamengo alone. Flamengo does not even know if you exist or even want to know about you. Association football was written here written in the American way by a user named Carioca and there was no problem until you came. Leave Flamengo alone. Jozamba (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Yaya Touré. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kawhi Leonard. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fernando Torres. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estádio José Alvalade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporting (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) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm SLBedit. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Eduardo Salvio, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! SLBedit (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest this one final time: do not change the WP:LANGVAR of established articles without reaching a WP:CONSENSUS for the change via a public discussion on the article's talk page. If I see further cases of this, I will assume that you are WP:NOTHERE to work collaboratively, that you either have an irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention or possibly worse. That conclusion will result in me seeking administrative action to prevent you from causing further damage or unrest in the English project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Point guard, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:COMMONALITY: perfectly acceptable to have soccer in parentheses. —Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Football in the United States while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. 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. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Amsterdam. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2026 FIFA World Cup, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You continue to ignore WP:LANGVAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate my edit[edit]

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit to Bolivia? Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Paz is not the capital of Bolivia.

"Fixes" to short descriptions[edit]

Your changes are not constructive; please stop making the descriptions less descriptive; please see Wikipedia:Short_description#Content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with what Ohnoitsjamie has said and would invite you to specifically address the changes you've made at Sydney. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Sydney#Short description. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney is a city in Australia and nothing wrong with that. Making thing look simple. Short descriptions not needed for long worlds. Thank you Jozamba (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Sydney 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above warning by Nkon21 applies equally to Sydney (disambiguation). When an edit you make is reverted, don't simply force your edit back into the article. You need to discuss it and gain consensus for the change. I assume that your reasoning for your edit at Sydney (disambiguation) is the same as your reasoning at Sydney, but the change simply is not an improvement. I invite you to self revert until you have sought to gain consenus. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney[edit]

I am an administrator who is trying to keep control at Sydney and its talk page, particularly with regard to the image used in the infobox. That follows from some very lengthy discussions at WP:ANI. I have no opinion on what short description should apply at Sydney or Sydney (disambiguation) but there must be no further edit warring at those pages. Your quota of reverts at those pages is full and I will have to issue a block if there are any further reverts before gaining consensus on the talk page. The topic of Sydney has had enough argument in recent times and there must be no more. Please discuss the issue and engage with comments from others. Any more reverts against two editors will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Sydney and Sydney (disambiguation) show slow-motion edit warring. I explained above that such disruption is particularly inappropriate while a contentious discussion is underway and will not be tolerated. Any repeat will lead to longer blocks. It appears from your comment at Talk:Sydney that English may not be your first language. If you are unable or unwilling to discuss issues and engage with othe editors when there is a disagreement, you will have to never revert other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney[edit]

I have reverted you at Sidney as you undid a useful edit. I don't know why, but please don't do that again. All articles are intended to have short descriptions, as you can see here, though many do not yet; those that do, however, should not have them removed. Thank you, happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions[edit]

You will be blocked from editing if you continue to remove short descriptions from articles. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Zozamba has previously been blocked for doing that at Sydney. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeatedly performing undiscussed and unhelpful changes to short descriptions, against consensus. 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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sydney. How many times do you have to be warned in order to realize that community collaboration is required in order to edit Wikipedia? You have been explained numerous times why your edits are not an improvement and you still don't seem to acknowledge WP:BRD. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly edit warring at Sydney. I left an explanation at #Sydney above on 18 May 2020 but there was no response. Six days later I had to block you when the incident was repeated. Then I had to block you again on 22 June 2020 after further repetion with no discussion. Your last message on this page was 17 May 2020 and it appears there is difficulty communicating in English. That is not a problem provided you are able to understand that edit warring is not acceptable. However, to continue editing there will need to be an unblock request showing an understanding of the situation.

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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]