User talk:Jackie d. alarcón

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Jackie d. alarcón, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Compulsory voting does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edits at Compulsory voting...
...are unexplained and seem odd. I have tried to explain my concerns in Edit summaries and had no impact. You need to explain the reason for your change in an Edit summary, and/or on the article's Discussion page, or even here. If you don't explain a change for which there is no obvious reason, it will continue to be reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time and mine
I have this article on my Watch List. Every time you make a change, I get told. If it's no more constructive than what you have done so far, it will be instantly reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Rabbitfang (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Compulsory voting, you may be blocked from editing. ''It does not seem that the user understands English. If this continues, I will request a move block on the page.'' Rabbitfang (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Compulsory voting, you may be blocked from editing. ''Your edits involving adding Category:Discrimination are unwarrented. If you disagree, please make your argument on the talk page.'' Rabbitfang (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination category
I invite you to share your argument in having the Compulsory voting article added to the Discrimination Category on the article's talk page. If you need a translator, a helpful one is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitfang (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Te invitamos a compartir sus argumentos en que el Compulsory voting artículo añadido a la categoría de la Discriminación en el artículo de página de discusión. Si necesita un traductor, un útil es. Rabbitfang (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Compulsory voting = discrimination?

 * Yes, I can see you feel strongly about this, but it seems to me an odd thing to be doing. I come from a country where voting is compulsory (Australia) and, while some complain about it, the word discrimination is never used to describe it. I suspect we're on opposite sides of a cultural barrier here, and possibly a language one too. If you could join the discussion on the Talk page and explain your view, it would help us all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ... and I'm not sure what in the world you were thinking when you moved the article TWICE against clear consensus ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Compulsory voting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Charles (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Por favor, deje su edición perjudicial. Si continúan violando el punto neutro de Wikipedia de la política vista por la adición de comentarios y el análisis personal en artículos, como lo hizo en el voto obligatorio, que pueden ser bloqueados desde la edición. (Translated by Rabbitfang 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) using Google Translator)
 * Su adición a la página va en contra de consenso. A menos que pueda convencernos de que el artículo pertenece a la categoría, que seguirá siendo eliminado por los editores. Si se continua a añadir, que pueden ser bloqueados. (Your addition to the page goes against consensus. Unless you can convince us that the article belongs in the category, it will continue to be removed by editors. If you continue to add it, you may be blocked.) Translated by Google Translator. Rabbitfang 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Clear that Compulsory voting is discrimination, for that I adding Compulsory voting in the category Discrimination. talk:Jackie d. alarcón
 * No, you are wrong. I am certain that your use of English is wrong here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC). Not, you are wrong, not me. The French, Spanish and Portuguese versions of Wikipedia is the certain.
 * The same user disruptively sockpuppeting and edit-warring across multiple language editions with the same edit does not make it any more right than if they only do it on one. Orderinchaos 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Rabbitfang 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

As you have continued the same behaviour which led to your initial block, you have been blocked again. Orderinchaos 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice

 * 1) You need to communicate in English exclusively . If you find yourself unable to use English, you will have to leave.
 * 2) "When the whole party tells you you are drunk, it's time to go to bed." &mdash; meaning: if you're the only one who supports a position or opinion and various people of diverse backgrounds tell you that you are wrong, it's time to reconsider your stance.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Compulsory voting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for disruption, as you did at Compulsory voting. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)