User talk:Elpablo69

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information that you might find helpful:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Additionally, the sandbox is available if you wish to test your editing skills.

All in all, good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Costco trivia
I don't understand your rationale for restoring the Costco trivia section. Most of the points were unsourced, most hardly notable even with sources, plus as you know, trivia sections are discouraged by Wikipedia policy. The trivia could live quite nicely on the talk page where I put it until an editor comes along with sources and a willingness to incorporate the trivia into the main article. However, I am not going to edit war, although I strongly disagree with your judgement. MaxEnt (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the trivia policy is in debate. My gut says they have a place. Yes, they should be verifiable, and the stuff I put there is cited. In any event, the fact that Sam Walton wanted to merge Sam's Club with Price Club needs to be mentioned somewhere...Elpablo69 (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Elpablo69: I suggest you check out Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Insulting other editors works against community, and can lead to banning of editors. I know you're a legitimate editor, and I don't think you should undermine that by calling other editors "bozo" or "airhead". --Matt (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, but I can honestly say I'm not too worried. The truth is a justification for all. When an editor removes something due to "inaccuracy," when any person can verify the fact by looking at the back of a giftcard, well, that's a bozo for 'ya. As for it not being important, that's just common sense. Elpablo69 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's no justification for being uncivil. --Matt (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy is called no personal attacks, not personal attacks only when justified. There is no gray area on whether or not personal attacks on Wikipedia are acceptable. --Matt (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Matt (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep the three revert rule in mind as well.-Wafulz (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fingerhut (retailer)
A tag has been placed on Fingerhut (retailer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Shicoco (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, on the flipside, I cannot "accept" your side. Who determines who is right, or do we just keep changing it back and forth? If anyone is worried about the 3 revert rule, my solution is for them not to keep reverting it; just as their solution is for me not to either. Sounds like a stalemate... Elpablo69 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You please stop. Why don't I ban you for vandalizing? :) Elpablo69 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Costco. Shawnpoo (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You please stop. Why don't I ban you for vandalizing? :) Elpablo69 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Sam's Club
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So the rule would equally apply to the other folks, too? Elpablo69 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
 * You were blocked because you were edit warring. Specifically, you wanted the article to note that with Costco's change in return policies, Sam's Club and Nordstrom's now have the most liberal return/refund policy ... and when other editors disagreed with your edit, you reverted the article to your preferred version seven times .  Had it been a single editor that was reverting your change, I would have blocked them as well.  However since four different editors were reverting your insertion, and as you had been warned four times, I blocked you for edit warring.  --Kralizec! (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam's Club, again
You've been warned about this before, but here it is again: don't add original research to the Sam's Club article. Further, text like "Sam's Club has always exercised a 100% satisfaction guaranteed." and "This change puts itself on par with Costco's return policy on electronics." are pushing a point of view that is unacceptable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Olla podrida mall
Hello Elpablo69,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Olla podrida mall for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Vanjagenije (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)