User talk:Italodal

Are you stupid? Do you know that study is too outdated?

Measuring human height within a population is very easy. Studies do not need to be "serious" in order to be correct.

Do you know that the data from the study is NOT surveyed by the authors of the study?

Please, think it over before you modify something.

Unfreeride 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing an awesome job and I really appreciate it. No, I dont want to help, because I monitored the article for a couple months already and ran out of patience with the vandalism. I really dont know what the best solution is but I appreciate you working in good faith to help. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said some of the info on my site was wrong. If you dont mind, tell me please, which ones? Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda busy so I havent copied over your height data to my site yet. But youre doing a great job. I really didnt think that article was salvageable and now it's a lot better than it was before. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding a comment about penis length to a human height article? No source that I can tell, and the only other thing you added was an advertisement for a supplement site. Tarlneustaedter (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you crazy? Where is it?--Italodal (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend that you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing music genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Continued genre changes to suit your own point of view may result in a block. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italodal, you need to WP:SOURCE your genre changes and you should also begin a WP:DISCUSSION on the article's talk page to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for the genre change. People often argue over them and they always lead to dispute because people change them to what they think is the best genre. If you require any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note you posted on my talk page; I'm glad to see discussions before changes. I don't know if I pointed this to you before, but I have a write-up with opinions about genres on my user page, and a longer help article "in progress" on a sandbox page, which is not ready to turn into an article yet, but you can look at it here to see some opinions about this subject.

As you can see from the article, I'm usually against changing genres just for the sake of change, so if the current genres are not a problem, I usually object to a change.

There is a section in the article about inappropriate genres, which discuss the "pure" use of a genre vs. application of it by a rock band, for example. This applies to our discussion about the use of "avant garde" and "music concrete". The first term is not applicable to any Pink Floyd song, because they are not avant garde classical composers. "Music concrete" is a composition made entirely from tape collage, and is not applicable to a song that merely sounds strange. It is certainly not applicable to a normal sound recording like "Main Theme". "On the Run" is mainly a synthesizer / sequencer piece with other sounds dubbed in. It may sound like musique concrete, but it's not made in the same way. One could also say that the era of Music Concrete ended in the 1960s, so any more modern works should not use that genre name, unless they are being deliberately "retro", which Pink Floyd's songs are not.

I did agree to a few changes you proposed, although I don't think they are necessary. Changing genres in existing articles is almost always a futile task, and I don't recommend spending much time on it, as this is something usually done by newcomers who jump to conclusions about what kind of changes are needed at Wikipedia. There is so much that needs to be corrected and added to this site. But newcomers want to put emphasis on opinion, and change things to the way they see them, which makes it impossible to "move toward the ideal" because everyone has different opinions. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vandalized the page or I'll report you, the links are not dead. --TownDown (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This is the firt warning. --TownDown (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Argentine provinces by Human Development Index. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —slakr^\ talk / 13:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same warning has been given to TownDown (talk · contribs) --slakr^\ talk / 13:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert someone simply because they didn't discuss their changes. This goes against WP:BB as discussion is not a requirement. If you have a question of why they did their edit, ask them personally or bring it up on the discussion page (and point them to it).

Thanks, --DMBradbury 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have reverted many times that article without respect what the users explained to you why you shouldn't do it on the article's talk or on your own talk page. I hope you can stop with your actions. Prodigynet (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. .--Prodigynet (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index, you will be blocked from editing. There are references with all reports, your "source" is talking about PHDI report can't be comparabled with HDI reports. This article don't have any PHDI reports, and you are vandalizing and removing content from HDI reports. -- 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice try there, but I reverted you. Better luck next time old chap. Jolly Ω Janner 13:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italodal, if you wish to make accusations of sock puppetry please go to WP:SPI and state your claims with evidence. Bring it up in edit summaries and on the talk page will achieve little and will not help resolve the conflict here. Also please take careful note of my post at Talk:List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on my talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Mediation==--Criticalthinker (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Human height has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Human height and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Criticalthinker (talk)

Are you serious? We're still in the midst of mediation, for heaven's sake. I am not a partner with you on the human heights page; we both obviously have two different visions, so it's strange you'd even be so bold as to ask me to help you with it. I mean, you're entire talk page, right here, is filled with nothing but complaints. You're difficult; why would I help you with anything? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD I put on the article on your behalf has been declined by an administrator, due to concerns that deletion may be controversial (though the admin I believe accidentally said "non-controversial" in the edit summary). Would you like me to make an AfD nomination on your behalf, so the deletion process can continue? Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Human height. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying such things as "no chance for vandals" in your edit summary and reverting several changes at once?

If you know of vandalism in the article remove it specifically and not several edits.124.149.145.251 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italodal, please STOP reverting several changes at once claiming that they where done by vandals. some of the edits where legitimate changes, if you want to undo vandalism please do it carefully. My new entry for Bolivia was deleted by your last undo. (QuantumShadow (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have to agree with the above users. Please stop doing massive article revertions without properly identifying what is vandalism and what is not. I had corrected the height for Argentina, added more info for Chile and wikified over 40 references, all of which you reverted. Please be more careful next time. Pristino (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are four automobile world championships, Formula One, World Rally, World Touring Car and GT1. A1 Grand Prix never was, and more over, appears to be defunct. --Falcadore (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One

2010 Formula One season

World Rally Championship

2010 World Rally Championship season

World Touring Car Championship

2010 World Touring Car Championship season

FIA GT1 World Championship

2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season

Everything you need to know is on these pages. --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template, unless renamed, should only include world championships and world cups. It should not include other events, even if they are the pinnacle of the sport, especially when they are not considered as such by the sport's ruling bodies. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 22:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you start on this page please because I think this will be a good one. Mr Hall of England (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted your edits because they were done carelessly, erasing a lot of my contributions. However, because there was so much vandalism in the version I had worked on, I will now re-add my changes on top of your version. Pristino (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]