User talk:CarlosRodriguez

NPOV tag on Joseph Smith, Jr. article
Hello Carlos, you added an NPOV tag to the above cited article today. When adding a tag it is required that you explain the reasoning for the tag on the dicussion page (the tag directs editors to read the discussion page for reasoning). I have removed the tag you added because there was no cooresponding discussion. I would encourage you to return to the page, add the tag if desired, and explain your reasoning. The purpose of the explanation is provide direction to other editors on how to improve the article so that the tag can be removed. WIKI is a collabrotive effort and all editors are welcome. I hope to see future edits from you. Cheers! Storm Rider (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Golden Plates
I don't want you to think that I've reverted your edit without thinking about it. There's a section about the witnesses further down in the article. --John Foxe 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during October 25 2006 (UTC) to Black people
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, just bold editing. You might read the article one of these days. CarlosRodriguez 03:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bold editting does not equal removing 10 kb of text. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Terry Semel
Please read and review our biographies of living persons policies, and our Point of View policies. I am concernd that your edits to the Terry Semel page, especially your statement that the UCLA award is one they "give to donors of large amounts of money." This kind of soapboxing is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. PouponOnToast 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films with numbers in their titles
Hi, I put this category you made up for deletion here. Feel free to comment there. Garion96 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Please see the extensive discussion at Talk:Barack Obama concerning this controversy and kindly self-revert your changes, since they are clearly against the prevailing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * i have reviewed, clearly there is no consensus, just a lot of bullying.....  CarlosRodriguez (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright
Please see the extensive previous discussions and edits relating to the intentional misquotation of Wright out of context and in a misleading fashion. Where possible, one should use direct quotes, rather than paraphrasing of statements. --Tkhorse (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am adhering to this policy. If you have a specific example it would be easier for me to know what you think is in violation. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 06:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned numerous times about your POV edits at Jeremiah Wright, and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Do not do so again.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, you keep coming here and trying to bully me with no specifics. you keep inserting information not supported by any references; i have removed it. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * STOP DELETING paragraphs that others have spent many hours carefully drafting and revising. Others have worked extremely hard to refine and perfect the language and references, and you come every day and simply delete everything, and substitute it with quotes that are not cited with sources.  I agree completely with Grsz11.  Please report this user to the administrator. --Tkhorse (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You seem to have a problem with using the edit summary box at the bottom of the edit screen. Continuously deleting material with no explanation whatsoever makes it hard for others to assume good faith. Please use the edit summary from now on. It's simple, all you have to do is say what you just did to the page. Thanks,  Grsz  11  04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Grsz  11  04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

yet more bullying with no specifics from a passionate edit warrior

,,. You know quite well what I'm talking about.  Grsz  11  04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have commented the WP:AIV report, declining to block now on the grounds that it is - even though obvious policy nonconform - not persitent vandalism or spamming. However, if this behaviour continues, I will block you. Poeloq (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we can work towards a consensus on the talk page to include some of your material . Please join us there to discuss your proposed changes.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

More violations:, , ,.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.  Grsz  11  17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information
I've started a section for your disruptive behavior at WP:ANI.  Grsz  11  17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.  Grsz  11  16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When you return...
Hi, Carlos. I just noticed this comment you made at User talk:Fovean Author. If you have a concern about my behavior as an administrator, please discuss it with me. If you think the matter is a serious one, and you are unsatisfied with my response, you are free to start an admin user conduct RfC. If a consensus of editors in good standing agree with you that I am biased and have been bullying and threatening users, I'm willing to step down as an administrator. I don't think that my behavior has been out of line, but I'm willing to discuss it with you and others. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And seeing as you are continuing edit warring at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and at A More Perfect Union after your block, which was for disruption/edit warring, take this as your final warning before there are further sanctions. This comment is disturbing and is very much uncivil, along with this. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  06:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you have been served at ANI. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy article
Hi there, I see you nominated the article for deletion because you feel it is a "POV fork". Sir, I beg to disagree; all that I have done with this article is combined material from the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article and the Jeremiah Wright article, and cleaned up the material. There is absolutely no bent to it; both sides arguements are presented, as well as the effects on Sen. Obama. Please also note that a similar media controversy erupted over John McCain and his supposed dealings with lobbyists, and that has its own article. Happyme22 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look Carlos, I don't know how many times you've been told about your POV edits. This is like, the 20th in the last week. The section headers you give our inappropriate. The inflammatory quotes should not be used as titles. The bit you add about the "typical white person" comment is inappropriate in this article because it has nothing to do with the sermons. You've been blocked before for doing this exact same thing...and it will happen again if you continue.  Grsz  11  15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)