User talk:Php2000

March 2020

Please do not post about updating images or tables in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic-article. There is a delay, and rest assured that the images and tables are updated as often as possible. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

We at Wikiproject Medicine would like to thank you for your contribution now during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. We are far from out of the woods with regard to the pandemic and understand that your focus may lie on coronavirus efforts.
We would still like to shine a light on our active medical community, which you are more than welcome to join. As a participant you can ask questions and get help about best practices on editing any health or medical article — on our talk-page. We are a (mostly) collegial bunch, and I do hope you feel welcome to participate. Currently there are two active communities:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (talk — The general medical community)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 (talk — A temporary COVID-19 community)

Please join up!

Best regards, Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have undone your cut-and-paste page move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Mexicans of European descent a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into White Mexicans. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexicans of European descent closed as "Keep", so moving the page is not an appropriate outcome and was contraindicated by the closing admin when he said that a discussion about the rename should be held via a WP:RM. Such discussions are typically kept open for at least a week, and then the page move needs to be properly done using the page move function, not via cut 'n' paste. — Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Rolling back JamesOredan socks

Hi Php2000, fyi user IbeRequeté and IP 188.76.203.162 have been blocked as sock puppets of JamesOredan, a banned user. I'm going to roll back the article "Arabic language influence on the Spanish language" to this version of 30 August: [1], to remove their changes. I hope that's ok with you, I saw that you're the only other person to have edited that page since then. I don't think there are any of your changes that will be removed, but if so, feel free to put them back. Also, any other edits of theirs can be reverted, and the presumption is that they should be, regardless of whether they improve the article or not. However, it's not required to remove them. See WP:BANREVERT and WP:BMB. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

Please be aware that the following apply to Hunter Biden

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The discretionary sanctions are authorized by the arbitration committee decision explained here:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at White Mexicans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides in this dispute. But what you consider a "compromise" is still considered a revert. 3RR applies regardless of who is right. Stop reverting and discuss on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Another JamesOredan sock

Hi Php2000, just to let you know in case you weren't aware already, DavideNotta (talk · contribs) has been blocked as yet another sock of banned user JamesOredan (talk · contribs). As before, any edits of theirs can be reverted, and the presumption is that they should be, regardless of whether they improve the article or not. However, it's not required to remove them. See WP:BANREVERT and WP:BMB. I haven't restored the edits of yours that they reverted, because I'm not certain if that's what you want, but feel free to restore them yourself. That's not considered edit-warring. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi IamNotU. Going through the edits, I'm pretty sure Anthroveritas is also a sock of the same editor. Has the same line of edit-warring with Portuguese editors over N. African, Middle Eastern genetics in Spain. --Php2000 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

For various reasons I would say that AnthroVeritas is not JamesOredan. I can understand that JamesOredan's deceit is frustrating and may make it hard to trust others. But in this case I'd advise assuming good faith, and not reverting AnthroVeritas' edits based on that suspicion. Whether they are adhering to the WP:NPOV policy I can't say, because I don't have much knowledge about the subject of genetics (or interest in it) and don't really have time to look deeply at all the different sources. I'm only there because of the sockpuppetry, and once in a while I'll fact-check a particular source, but that's about it. If you see new editors or IPs that you suspect, for example repeating the same edits or comments, feel free to let me know. --IamNotU (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU Sure no issue. I just figured he was based on being involved in the same edit war with Melroross, after a quick run through his edit history. I found it unlikely it was two different people based on what I saw. As long as Im not wasting my time with a sock Im happy. Php2000 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ana Castillo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International. 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) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hi. Creating a section of ideology (rather than about political stunts or declarations) from news reports without any holistic framework is dubious (this is not the only problematic passage in the section vis-à-vis the sourcing, in any case), entering WP:BALASP and WP:SYNTH territory. It happens that there are analyses by scholars about the party ideology already cited in the article (those are far from being fully "squeezed" in the article, btw, some of them may possibly offer an actual take on their vision of the socalled "Hispanidad" or the socalled "Iberosfera"). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Asqueladd I really don't get it. I'm not referring the section but the sentence which is verifiable. Vox, which is generally xenophobic and anti-immigration, is favorable to Latin American immigration. This is both relevant and interesting since it sets it apart from the European far right - particularly considering Latin America is the main source of immigration to the country. I'm not heavily involved in this article but if you have an issue with the wider section, you can work on the section as a whole, but there is no reason to target that specific sentence which, if anything, should be highlighted and explained more. Note that I (as most people) dislike Vox so there is no politics behind my intervention here. Php2000 (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, again. Look. This party (like many others) generates thousands of news a week about things they say. I am asking for a better source (such a judgement part of an analysis by an authoritative third party observer) to avoid drawing synthesis from that particular example of the gazillion news reports they generate and make instead a strong case for WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. I am relatively agnostic on the particular statement, because this is mainly an issue of sourcing (and about the idea of the article raising its sourcing standards rather than going backwards "como los cangrejos" as people say in Spain), although strictly speaking the promotion thing is weasel: they do not "promote" (materially speaking) because they do not have the power to physically promote anything (the powers on immigration rely on the Government of Spain and they rule shit at that level). If you don't do it yourself, I will look for something in the quality sources. IIRC, Casals wrote something about their relation with Latin-America.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Asqueladd Check this out: https://www.voxespana.es/biblioteca/espana/2018m/gal_c2d72e181103013447.pdf (Point 22 evidently refers to Latin America) Php2000 (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

[2] I've performed changes in the direction mentioned above (raising sourcing standards irrespective of the content). What do you think? In any case, feel also free to copy-edit because I am not a natural.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Php2000, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Php2000, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)