User talk:Caro 08

Welcome!

Hello, Caro 08, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your requests at WP:RFPERM

You have made several requests in a matter of days for permissions, all of which have been denied. Your are kindly asked to stop disrupting the board by making another request for at least two weeks. Thank you. NJA (t/c) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Canada

Hey, I noticed you added some pictures of Canadian cities to Canada. Those are very nice pics; unfortunately, that article already has quite a few pictures (too many, in the opinions of some). I would suggest finding an article with fewer pictures that could benefit from some of those; you might look through WP:WikiProject Canada to find articles needing illustration, or you could check the articles about the subjects of the pictures. If you have any questions, feel free to drop by my talk page. Happy editing! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if you keep adding those pictures despite them being removed, it's possible that someone is going to block you. If you really think that those pictures should be in that article, I would suggest discussing it on the talk page before getting yourself into trouble. Ping me if you need help. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Canada, you will be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canada. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Caro, you need to stop and discuss now...if you keep adding those images, you're going to get into trouble. Please take a few minutes to talk it over and see if we can come to some agreement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are not adding anything useful to the main article on Canada; they're just creating unnecessary page clutter. Find other topics to add them to — but you will be editblocked if you add them to the main article again without discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Canada. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please, you have been told by numerous people to stop making edits that degrade the page. If you continue, particularly if you continue without discussing it at talk:Canada, you'll be blocked. TastyCakes (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Canada

Hey Caro. Hope you don't mind, but I moved some comments of yours from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1 to Talk:Canada, because that's the correct venue for discussing changes to the article. Your comments (and potential replies) are now here (click on the link to see them). Discussion should occur there prior to any changes to the article, but please make sure you have consensus before acting. As always, let me know if you have questions or concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canada. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ckatz^chat _spy 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop this. Just because you want to add something to the article doesn't give you the right to repeatedly overrule a number of other editors who don't feel that the contribution is useful or that it adds anything of value to the article. You can participate in the discussion at Talk:Canada if you'd like to make your case (not Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1, which is an old, closed and archived discussion of something that has nothing to do with your request), but you cannot just keep adding it to the article over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your post on the Canada article talk page -->Talk:Canada#Images.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic ban if possible. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:58, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Hello Caro 08, you need to stop adding your suite of images to the Canada article. Please get agreement on the article talk page, now that your change has been disputed. Have a read at WP:BRD, it's up to you to get concensus for your proposed changes and that hasn't emerged yet. Please don't disrupt our articles with repeated unagreed changes, otherwise I may have to temporarily prevent you from editing here. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Caro 08

Hello Caro 08. Caro 08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Caro 08 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Unblocked per conditions below.

Request handled by: Franamax (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Caro 08, will you agree to stop trying to add the images and to discuss your proposed changes in future and get agreement on the talk page first if they are disputed? Franamax (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes,of courseCaro 08 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on that I will unblock you. Be aware that deleting text from a page is not the only reason you can be blocked, repeatedly adding material against consensus (or any other reason in WP:3RR or several other policies) will also warrant a block. It's very important that you discuss things with other editors and be sure that your edits are met with approval. In particular, if someone reverts an edit you make, that's when you should go to the talk page, explain your reasons, then wait for other comments to be sure you're on the right track.

Note that I'm basing this on your promise of good behaviour now (and hopefully reading through those helpful welcome links at the top of your talk page). If you start doing the same things again, you can expect a longer block. Take care! Franamax (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Canada (again)

Caro, I've reverted the last two edits you made to Canada. You have not used an edit summary to explain what you are trying to accomplish and whatever it is generates massively long diff's that make it almost impossible to figure out what you are changing. It looks to me like you are removing large portions of text.

Perhaps you could try using our sandbox to practice your editing rather than work on a live article? Franamax (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,sorry!I will use an edit summary!Thank you to you!!For my editing,i will use some pictures that i took on Commons.Thank you!Caro 08 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caro, I've created User:Caro 08/Canada as a draft, which you can edit as much as you like. It might be a good idea to make your proposed changes there, and let everyone know on Talk:Canada when you're finished, so other editors can give you feedback. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:16, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated your three-day block from editing. I unblocked you expressly on condition that you wouldn't keep adding the images to the Canada article without getting agreement first and now you're right back at it. Franamax (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fran, if you look at the article talk page, Caro was led to believe she had some sort of approval instate her edits. She probably just didn't realize she needs to get consensus from a broader range of editors rather than just one. I believe she was acting in good faith and that she just needs to be better informed of the decision-making process here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:30, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page does look like approval was coming around, but the edits appear to be doing unspecified damage to the article. I've asked at Talk:Canada for someone else to make the desired edit. Once that gets done, I'll look at the block again but right now there's too much risk to the integrity of the article. Franamax (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone else can make the edits. We don't know exactly what she was planning to do. I feel bad for Caro right now, because she was blocked and told she needs to get approval for further edits, which she thought she did, then was reverted and told to use edit summaries, which she then did, and was reverted and blocked for it. I would really like to see her unblocked on the proviso that she only edit the draft I created for her in userspace, until she get broad approval to enact them in mainspace. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:41, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of Caro 08 sand box is great...lets get her (Caro 08) to do it in there..and when she thinks its ready...then post this link [[User:Caro 08/Canada]] to the Canada talk page...I also feel bad here but an article that is under FA re-review is not really the place to learn to do major edits...The sand box is fine until she thinks all is ok ..then we will just copy and past her version after a so called "vote".....
Caro 08 we are sorry that your having such a hard time with this!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if Caro 08 agrees to work only on the draft, that will be fine with me. I'm just not prepared to take the risk with the article itself since the diffs are almost impossible to follow. Franamax (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not just prevent editing to that one article for now??..After all this time i would guess she will be done her version fast..but we will still need time for a review make sure noting is lost and people like it..that could take a few days!!

What do you think Caro 08 can you edit things here till your done and we get the majority of other editors to agree to the change..i see you already have some support Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to unblock

Caro, hopefully you're still reading this and not too bummed out about this whole situation. We're offering to unblock you, but you need to agree to only edit User:Caro 08/Canada, instead of the main Canada article, basically until everyone says you can edit the main article again.

User:Caro 08/Canada will be your personal draft of the Canada article. You can do whatever you want with it, and then show it to everyone to get approval. If you agree to this you'll be unblocked. How does that sound? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:00, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

On second thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&diff=prev&oldid=343775359

Perhaps this user isn't as innocently baffled as we thought... Equazcion ^(talk) 20:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate changing of my comments

Caro, you deliberately changed [1] my comments from stating that I disagree with your edits to agreeing with you edits. That is quite devious, and I will be reporting you to the admins. Please refrain from editing other people's edits in the future. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see my "on second thought" above. This situation would appear to not be what I had originally assumed. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:29, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

So clearly understands what we have been saying..and changed someone edit to look like additions were approved... I can tell you i am not a fan of someone trying to deceive me!...So i am out of this and will not assists this editor in any way forward!! and would keep block in place!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There may have been misunderstanding, but deliberately editing another users comments to say something different is not on. Block should stay in place. And unfortunately it means if they continue like this after the block expires, the next block may be a permanent one as people are spending a lot of time here for no gain or improvement of the editor being spoken to. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine my confusion when I was sure consensus was against the change then went back and saw blanket approval after I'd reblocked! :) I was like "which Wikipedia was I just reading?" and I probably should have been sharper on that. Any unblocking is definitely off the table now, for sure. I'm musing on an extension, that's pretty much as bad as it gets for behaviour. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally indef her for that. She should be forced to post an unblock request, explain herself, and promise to never do something like that again, in order to be unblocked. After this incident, her block shouldn't simply expire so we can wait and see if she does it again. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:03, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I endorse an indef block, per Equazcion's comment above. Caro has already been given a second chance, and took advantage of that good faith in the worst way possible by deliberately manipulating other editors' comments. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, most people have assumed good faith so far but Caro's activity is starting to push the bounds of believability now. Possibly an out and out troll, highly disruptive on an important article whatever the case. TastyCakes (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please block her again, and this time make it an indef. I think there's sufficient cause. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:18, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Warning

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Canada, you will be blocked from editing. HalfShadow 23:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this user has tried again as Caro7440 (talk · contribs) which I've now indef-blocked. Franamax (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caro 08 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debloking please

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Caro 08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

74.57.42.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

[[WP:Long-term abuse|Long-term abuse]]

Blocking administrator: Materialscientist (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Sorry, but I see no reason to rescind the block. Your activities include edit warring, a refusal to respect repeated attempts at discussion and assistance, multiple incidents involving the use of sockpuppets to evade your block, and even changing the comments of other editors to make it appear as if they support your position. Alone, any one of those speaks to a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia operates. — Ckatz^chat _spy 20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wont do the same mistake again,because i didn't knew who the system worked before,but now,i know,i read everything and i know that before to edit a page or to add an image,i need to take it on the Wikicommons page,not on google.I know how to add images.Thank you for deblocking me.Caro 08 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Caro. From what I've seen, you've got some maturing to do before you're ready to start editing again. You might have some luck with Wikipedia:Standard offer in a few months, but that means no sockpuppets at all, a much better explanation of how your behavior will change if unblocked, and an understanding that if you are in fact unblocked, there will be no tolerance for edit warring or changing the comments of others. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]