User talk:Inesbugsbunnyines

Welcome!
Hello, Inesbugsbunnyines, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559324168 your edit] to Francisco de Toledo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * of the immense viceroyalty, to give an adequate legal structure, strengthening important Indian institutions, around which revolved the administration of the country for two hundred

Edit warring on Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba
[[

File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * To be honest, I dont see edit warring. But I do see problems with your competence in editing WP:Competence. There are several problems in your edits. (1) Langauge skills - in place your English is poor to the level that the contents become incomprehensible. (2) Neutral point of view. Alba may have had many good qualities, in his war in the Netherlands he committed many atrocities he also executed loyal nobles (Egmont and Hoorne)after a show trial and butchered unarmed civilians after oaths were sworn not to harm them (Naarden, Zutphen, Mechelen) to name but a few. (3) Encyclopedic tone should be neutral. Poetic phrasings that you frequently use are not encyclopedic (4) Trivialities should not be part of the article. The section on the palace is far too detailed and does not tell anything of relevance about the historical figure. All together there is just too much wrong with your edits to work with without almost completely rewriting them. However, it is not our (or my) task to revise a long multithousand characters section to make it acceptable, it is your task to make sure it is acceptable before adding it.


 * Please try to find consensus on talk before making substantial changes, or make small changes at a time and wait a few days to see whether they are accepted before making additional changes. Arnoutf (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This user continues to (1) write poorly, including writing sentences that lack a predicate, (2) fail to write in a neutral point of view, (3) fail to write in a neutral tone, and (5) revert (edit warring) instead of fixing these problems. Ground Zero | t 02:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit to this article does not meet Wikipedia standards. Let me be absolutely clear: it will not be accepted as you have written it. Stop making the same edit over and over. Your edit must be written in correct English, not rambling, run-on sentences. If you make the same edit again, you will be blocked from editing. Ground Zero | t 09:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Readding removed stuff without informative edit summary or discussion of additions on the talk page goes against WP:BRD. Threatening vandalism charges goes against WP:AGF both are indications of disruptive editing. Each and any poorly worded edit maybe reverted, each removed text MUST be discussed before reading. Clean up your act or find something else to do. Arnoutf (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Either your English is too poor to actually discuss what you are doing, or your edits are intended to push your own point of view. Both are inacceptable. Stop it. Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking
in addition to the serious issues raised above, you are not using links in articles correctly. Please review WP:OVERLINK before you add any more links to articles. Ground Zero | t 03:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there something about WP:OVERLINK that you do not understand? Can I clarify any part of it for you? Or are you just choosing to ignore it? I am willing to go back to just reverting your edits if you are not interested in follwing Wikipedia polcy. Ground Zero | t 02:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Refernces
You must provide refrences to reliable sources when adding new material to an article. I have reverted your last edits. Ground Zero | t

English level
Please make sure that when you edit you use English of at least a fair level. The phrase "In 1541 Fernando Álvarez de Toledo was named Mayordomo mayor del Rey de España or High Steward to King Charles I of Spain and therefore superior head home, entrusting the important tasks related to the Royal Household and Heritage of the Crown of Spain" is an example where there are several major issues that I noticed you habitually make errors with all in a single sentence


 * (1) Use English if a good English term exist. In this case "Mayordomo mayor del Rey de España" is just the Spanish form of "High Steward of the king of Spain". There seems to be no compelling reason why the Spanish form is provided (at all). You do this type of thing repeatedly in the article. Stop that. It is poor style and unencyclopedic.


 * (2) Use of overly grande language as in "superior head home" - this is unencyclopedic and even poorer in style than unnecessarily copying in Spanish terms.


 * (3) Use of phrases that make no sense in English (again "superior head home" - can only be construed as house of the head but even then makes no sense).


 * (4) Poor grammer that changes meaning of the sentence "entrusting the important tasks related to" - as the duke is the subject of your sentence, this phrasing implies that it is the duke who entrusts tasks to some unmentioned person.


 * (5) Inconsistent naming of persons places etc. throughout the article the Duke, Fernando, Alba, de Toledo is named in different sections with different names. The kings (Charles V holy emperor in particular) is sometimes referred to as Charles I of Spain. This confuses the readers. Don't take the most commonly used name and stick with that.


 * In addition, I noticed you have started to chop up the article into very very small sections. This is again extremely poor style.

All in all, please make smaller edits; practice small edits and collaboration in multiple articles before overhauling one article and DISCUSS what you are doing! You have been told by multiple editors that you should follow the rules. Lack of competence is not an excuse, if your English does not suffice, stay out of English language Wikipedia. It is not the task of other editors to improve your poor work; it is your task to provide good edits from the start. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am happy to work with you on improving Wikipedia BUT you need to show good faith in making high quality (language, style, grammer, neutrality of tone, referencing, structure, lack of trivia etc.) edits. A minimum level of competence is required. Copyediting sloppy work of others just won't do. Arnoutf (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

DISCUSS!!
Please discuss edits that are reverted and reach agreement they are ok BEFORE you put them back in. Your wording like "was famous as an excellent general and enjoyed enormous popularity in command of the troops" is a style fit for propaganda songs NOT for an encyclopedia as the content is highly non neutral and the tone of voice is un-encyclopedic.

So far I have given you every benefit of doubt, but if you continue your pattern of stubbornly re-adding stuff without a clear effort to reach consensus on the talk page I will have to assume that you are consciously and intentionally being engaged in disruptive editing Disruptive editing (so far there is evidence that you have engaged in disruptive editing examples 1, 4 and 6). Read the relevant policies, guidelines and essays, clean up your act accordingly and discuss, discuss, discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you from editing further for the persistent behaviours identified above. Too many editors are wasting too much time on you. Ground Zero | t 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Las ideas no se matan y menos se bloquean
Al Ground Zero | t: Si piensas que los "comportamientos persistentes identificdos arriba" son suficientes para producir un bloqueo, sencillamente te contesto que tu conducta es VANDÁLICA ya que conductas como las tuyas únicamente pretenden silenciar los aportes de otros Wikipedistas. Te recuerdo que la Wikipedia tiene, como objetivo pricipal y básico, ser de contenido LIBRE. Tu bloqueo es, pues, un sinsentido para la Wikipedia y te aseguro que muy poco podrás hacer para silenciar a los Wikipedistas en este sentido. Te saludo. --Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ines, you can review the Wikipedia blocking policy here: WP:BLOCK. I believe that my block is consistent with that policy. The purpose of blocking you is not to "silence" you, but to get you to follow Wikipedia's process by discussing contentious changes on the article's talk page instead of engaging in an edit war as you have done. Other editors and I have repeatedly encouraged you to discuss changes and get consensus before making them. You have never discussed your edits on the article's talk page.

While the intent of Wikipedia is to allow anyone to edit, there are policies and procedures to discourage and prevent edit warring, which is a waste of everyone's time. While you are free to edit any article, so are other people. If you and another editor disagree on an article, you should discuss and resolve your differences, rather than just reverting each other's edits back and forth.

WP:BLOCK says, in part: "Blocks should be used to: 1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; 2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; 3. and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." My block is not vandalism, but is intended to: 1. stop you from your disruptive edit warring, 2. deter this behaviour, and 3. encourage you to discuss edits and resolve differences.

If you do not agree with the block, you can appeal the block here: APPEAL. Te saludo tambien. Ground Zero | t 20:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited María de Toledo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francisco de Toledo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oropesa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Francisco_de_Toledo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Francisco_de_Toledo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)