User talk:Felipealvarez

és tão criança! Pára lá com as tuas alterações, já metes nojo, ó espanholito. Discordas de algo fala no talk. -Pedro 01:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

não... aquilo nem tem a minha visão, seu tolo! Para fazer aquilo participou muita gente, e não só eu! Aliás nem pus lá muita coisa. A minha visão é que a Espanha é como a Turquia (Chipre) e a China (Tibete) - para mim, é tudo farinha do mesmo saco. Dividiu o concelho em dois: Olivença e Táliga, tal como fez a CHina no caso do Tibete, inclui populações e durante a era de Franco proibiu a língua. E, eu não sou nacionalista. Tu é que és! "Viva não sei o quê." Cresce! Tu é que devias pensar e ler a história daquela zona em condições. Até me chamaste de comunista. És louco! Eu tinha vergonha em viver num país que tem esse tipo de atitudes. E, não estamos a falar de coisas que já aconteceram, há séculos. Estamos a falar de dois países da União Europeia. Daqui a uns anos entendes. -Pedro 21:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you edit the Catalan people page to include Picasso? You are Spanish right? So you know he is not Catalan.

Vandalism?
This was not "vandalism". --NorthernCounties (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sorry, I made click on the wrong place by mistake. Felipealvarez (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Airline destinations
Felipealvarez, I'm not sure what AIP you keep referring to, but that may be immaterial. The project guidelines, arrived at by consensus, after much debate over a period of time, are that we list destination cities and not airports (the section of the article is also called airlines and destinations, not airlines and airports). We only suffix airports when there is more than one in said destination city. Whether or not you agree with this, please stop changing the current listings to what you feel is right, especially when more than one other editor has tried to tell you otherwise. There is a discussion on at WP:Airports, please participate in that to share your point of view before making additional changes. jasepl (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact location of the discussion is here, please come so we can all agree on something instead of changing and reverting the other's work. Slasher-fun (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop continuing to change select articles to meet your personal preferences. You have been made aware of an ongoing discussion on the topic. Your continuing to make said changes now amounts to vandalism. jasepl (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to stop changing select articles to meet your personal preferences. You have been asked many times not to make said changes, but to discuss them (see link above). Please stop; failure to do so will result in a block. jasepl (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unaware you were an admin Jasepl. If anything, I've watched your activities on a number of airport pages; and you seem to go from airport to airport changing Ryanair destinations, are met with numerous objectors, which shows that no concensus has been reached, and partake in edit warring. (Even if it is over a longer period than 24hours, it's still edit warring). I'm sure your intentions are good, but please take the hint from the vast amount of editors disgruntled with your edits. Again I reitterate, there seems to be no consensus on this. The listing convention needs discussed again. Further please don't threaten other editors that disagree with you. --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Madrid Airport(s)
Is there another airport in Madrid with commercial passenger service? If not, destination listings should simply say "Madrid", not "Madrid-Barajas". HkCaGu (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Civilian traffic doesn't mean commercial passenger traffic. We only disambiguate for commercial passenger services. That means there's currently only one Madrid. HkCaGu (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And let me clarify it doesn't matter if they are "open" for scheduled commerical passenger traffic. If they don't have any, then there is no need to disambiguate. If and when it happens, we can add "-Barajas". HkCaGu (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Airport destination listing
Please understand the basic principles of airport destination listing:

1. We list the main city served by the airport, not the exact location of the airport. This should be the same as the "Serves" field in the airport inbobox.

2. If there is one airport serving the same city, then we add a dash and the airport's common name (not necessarily official name).

Therefore, "Barajas" and "Tille" have no place in destination listing, because there is only one airport each in Madrid and Beauvais that now has commercial services. And if you want to change Milan to Bergamo, take away the airport's name because there is one airport in Bergamo. However, as I read it now, the "Serves" field says "Milan". HkCaGu (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Final warning
Your disregard to Wikiproject consensus is appalling. Consensus is a basic principle of Wikipedia, and Wikiprojects have established consensus. Unilaterally reverting styles to your liking is not how we operate. Changing Iberia to Iberia is simply ridiculous. This serves as your final warning. Please discuss your issues at WP:AIRPORT and not individual editors. HkCaGu (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ACE, TFS, LPS, FUE
Hi,

I have added a number of references to all pages which clearly state that those routes operate. Pleas don not remove them as they are all vailid. Also please do not remove Dublin from any of Thomson Airways destinations list. As Dublin is not part of the UK it is not listed on the Thomson website but it is bookable through First Choise which merged with Thomson a few years ago. I now hope you will stop saying that citation needed when it is not. All references will be removed after a short time as they are not required in the destinations list. Jamie2k9 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Hi,

Twitnkle is a privilege, and marking others users edits as vandalism, and reverting them when they are clearly not is unacceptable behavior and could possibly lead to you not being allowed to use Twinkle. Please do not edit war with other users using Twinkle, or not, as you have been doing. This is your last warning for inappropriate behavior.

T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit waring on several airport articles. Do not engage in edit waring with multiple other editors. If this behavior continues after the block is lifted, it will be reimposed for a longer period of time. If you have an issue with specific information you can discuss this on the article talk page and obtain consensus there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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.
 * I disagree with this block. The problem was over a content dispute; he was not acting disruptively. Mlm42 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Airbus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Airbus, you may be blocked from editing. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * 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.


 * Stop spreading false information. Keep reverting verified editions and the one blocked will be you. I'll keep editing to create a better and trustworthy wikipedia. Regards darling. Felipealvarez (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at CASA (aircraft manufacturer). Continued disruptive editing/edit warring. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You cannot block me for including correct and referenced information. Please be advised that the articles are completely wrong and you are erasing true information. Be careful because that might be cause of you being the one blocked. Take care darling. Felipealvarez (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an an admin, so I would be reporting you to WP:3RR, where an admin would evaluate the report, and they block you for edit warring if the believed it was warranted. BilCat (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)