User talk:Cuentaprueba10

Image Sizes
Hello, just to let you know we dont normally set the size of images as this overides the image size set by the user, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Iberia
Hi there, further to your edits to Iberia, please note that orders are not to be included in the infobox per WP:AIRLINE article guidelines. Also the fleet total in the infobox must match the fleet section, which in this case relates to the Iberia mainline fleet and does not include aircraft operated by subsidiary carriers, which have their fleet information listed in their own dedicated wikipedia articles. Hope it makes sense, if you have any queries please raise them at the article talk page. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to International Airlines Group has been undone 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. Please see Template:Infobox company, which states that subsidiary companies in the infobox should be listed in alphabetical order. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at International Airlines Group. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Please see Template:Infobox company, which states that subsidiary companies in the infobox should be listed in alphabetical order. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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.

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of Iberia (airline) into Iberia (airline). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

British Airways
Hi there, further to your recent edits to the fleet section of the British Airways article, please note that the reliable source is the UK CAA database at 22 April 2016, which relates to the registered fleet of the airline (some registered aircraft are not in use, as the section explains). Sites like airfleets.net are not reliable sources. Please only use the official CAA register for fleet totals, as stated in the hidden notes. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at Talk:British Airways. The registered fleet per the CAA is used as the only reliable source for fleet information in the case of this airline (airfleets.net / planespotters.net etc are not reliable sources). The article makes it very clear that the fleet information relates to the registered fleet - see the hidden notes: Please only use the official CAA register for fleet totals - thank you and THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS MADE UP OF THE REGISTERED FLEET ACCORDING TO THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Information orange.svg Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:British Airways. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SempreVolando (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at British Airways. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. SempreVolando (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. 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.

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning
You appear to be ignoring suggestions and warning being given to you, can I remind you that you cant add non-free images to wikipedia it is not allowed. If you continue to add copyright images and ignore the advise of others you may be blocked from editing for being disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are angry with me to do things right in the article of British Airways.


 * I have not added any photo any photo for more than a week ago. This warning is a bit strange, the photos that seem wrong are nominated for deletion, that's all, there is nothing to warn, but thanks in any case. --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The warning related to you adding non-free images to Iberia (airline), we are not allowed to add copyrighted images, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your changes to Iberia (airline) again, please read the edit summaries particularly we don't use external links inside in the body of the article and the bibliography was removed as it didn't relate to the references used. You need to discuss these things on the article talk pages as continuing to repeat changes and additions after they have been challenged is now clearly disruptive. If you revert the changes again without discussion or consensus then you will be blocked for disruptive behavior so please take note of what is being said to you. You may not get another warning. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I repeat : I have not added any photo any photo for more than a week ago.

And about bibliography who has to be discussed before deleting a whole section is you. I'll reverse the deletion because it is a particularly useful information and was for years in article. By the way seriously, I think you're having a slightly abusive behavior.


 * Despite my warnings you have tried to add a copyright image again to Iberia Express, I could block you now for that but I dont think you understand how wikipedia works. So I will let it go this time but you really need to understand our policies and guidelines before you continue to edit, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

iberia express image has permission to publish!!

if you mean this picture, this author has given permission for the publication of their photos in this album.

LOOK THHE PROOF : 

Note: This permission only extends to photos taken by Flo Weiss at this link.''' --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It and [[File:Iberia Express Airbus A320-214 Ssttutgard.jpg]] have both been deleted as copyright violations, you need to take it up with commons. You clearly added files that had been tagged with an issue at commons, please do not do it again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your attitude is shameful. I have submitted clear evidence that no violation of copyright.
 * I repeat your attitude is shameful and infuriating with the report of this photo. You should see the evidence that I have put on the table and not reporting without having a idea of the conditions of publication of this particular photo.


 * This photo has permission to publish--Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for popping up here, but "shameful" is really not an appropriate word to use in this situation. Wikipedia works when we all work together, not against each other. That means we sometimes need to discuss things that might not be straightforward. Please use the article talk pages if you have an idea that goes against the tried-and-tested way things are done in an article, e.g. how we reference fleet totals, or which photo we should have. Cloudbound (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rafael Nadal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  22:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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.

Why I can't change the picture? why it has to be that picture? what is the reason by this minor edit is censored ? you decide the picture or what? there is no reason to undo --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Rafael Nadal. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''Why would you go and replace a new photo that has been used for over a year with one that is six years older? Doesn't make sense to me.''  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  08:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. 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.


 * As explained in my most recent edit summary, please start a section on the article's talk page. I don't see why other would allow a photo that is six years older to remain as the lead image, so I've placed it in the 2009 section. I would also implore you not to copy and paste warnings from your talk page onto mine – you haven't actually given a proper reason for why you changed the picture in the first place.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  09:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I repeat the reason is 2009 photo is clearly better, the actual photography is of an terrible quality, the 6 years is no matter he is exactly the same

Air Nostrum logo
You are very welcome to upload the logo yourself. Click "Upload file" on the left and follow the "Upload Wizard". It will guide you through exactly what information you need to provide, and in the right place. I hope that helps. Also, I hope you read my edit summary in the Air Nostrum article before reverting my edit a second time. Cloudbound (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't trust, I upload an image with permission, without copyright and they deleted it, I don't trust.


 * Upload it, please.


 * Thanks in any case. --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Before I upload it, are you sure it is the airline's logo? Their website uses the logo I uploaded. It looks like the same situation as with Tyrolean Airways, which had its own corporate logo but operated as Austrian Airlines. As a company, Air Nostrum seem to use the logo I have uploaded. Cloudbound (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Is not the same case as Tyrolean Airways, Air Nostrum is presented as Iberia Regional & Air Nostrum not as Iberia as in the case of Austrian Airways and Tryrolean. Air Nostrum acquires the brand of Iberia regional is own brand as a franchise of Iberia. The logo is Iberia Regional Air & Nostrum. I've sent the same as was there before but with the current typography and is taken from the website of Air Nostrum, so I'm sure that this is the current logo.--Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning
You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Paseo del Prado. Jim1138 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Now all are well inserted and structured --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Real Madrid
I've stated the two reasons why that doesn't belong there (which you ignored). Del Bosque is not mentioned, Ancellotti is not mentioned, Jupp Heynckes is not mentioned..three recent coaches who won more than Mourinho at Madrid and all three are far more significant in the club's history. Another editor correctly removed Mourinho from the sub heading as he is not significant enough to warrant it...it's called WP:undue weight (excessive focus on an individual). The Madrid article is ranked good, to maintain this (or better) we must follow guidelines. Take any issue to the Madrid talkpage and gain a consensus to ensure guidelines are met. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ANCELOTTI IS NOT MENTIONED ?!!! far more singnificant? really? between 2009 and 2013 Ancelotti is far more singnificant than Mourinho ?..... seriously  Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you please stop ignoring the talkpage (as I see you do a lot).. Consensus is required before any contentious martial is inserted. Morurinho got one la Liga and a cup. Del Bosque got three Champions Leagues (he's not mentioned btw). C.Ronaldo was the dominant figure from 2009 to 2013, is the clubs all time top scorere, hence he warrants mention. Let the editors decide. I'm moving this to the talk page. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not about who won more, Benitez won nothing and training for a 6 months....


 * is the STAGE !! between 2009 and 2013 Mourinho is the most important figure of all is the key of these years.


 * I'm an editor like you by the way, Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Block Notice
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing to edit war on Real Madrid and other articles. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)