Julien Civange

Mensa

Hi. There is a WP:RS provided in the article saying she is a member of Mensa. I don't understand Italian and a non-english (this is English Wikipedia) language video clip doesn't satisfy the reliable source guideline. Even if it did, people make these kinds of denials all the time to protect their privacy. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is a list of Mensans, her denial doesn't matter. Furthermore, the source provided to establish her membership comes from the American Mensa website. http://www.spacecoast.us.mensa.org/WhyBother.html Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not "mean nothing". Why the hell would Mensa reprint false information on their own website? Foster is a member according to a source that fulfills WP:RS and the information will stay. I have added your fork to the Jodie Foster article, in spite of the fact that video clips do not satisfy the reliable source guideline. Please accept that as a compromise. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Mensans. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Aspect ratio. Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yma Sumac with no accent

You moved Yma Sumac to Yma Súmac two years ago. Do you remember why you moved the page from the artist's name with no accent to the name with a forward-leaning accent over the 'u'? The artist's own webpage uses no accent in her name. I'm asking because a recent editor has gone through the article and removed every accent. The next logical step would be to return the page to its earlier spot at Yma Sumac. I thought you could shed some insight as to the earlier move. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Steven

Regarding this edit on the steven gerrard article: I got the IPA from the Steven page which i assumed to be correct. Can you give me a link to the OED style you cited? I want to make sure before updating the Steven page. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this seems to conflict with the pronunciation. The word Steven in the dictionary seems to refer to an odd old usage and offers dual possibilties. (click the pronunciation tab if it doesn't show) As Stevenson is still in modern usage I'm more inclined to lean towards the "upside down e" usage myself. What do you think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This too gives the ˈstivən for IPA. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point regarding the AmEnglish pronunciation being different, I guess that's the flaw of the international pronunciation guide. Things are pronounced differently internationally! I'm confused over this now. Do whatever you feel is right. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thinking about this i think the ˈstivn is correct: thinking myself of how an american voice and an RP english voice would say it. Good points. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tax rates around the world

In this edit you added a table to this article that is now being challenged as a copyright violation from http://www.worldwide-tax.com/ OTRS ticket number 2008070310021408. In your edit you cite this source. I need to respond to the ticket but I need some help from you if I can. Can you remember anything about the source of the table you added? Can you shed any light on the copyvio claim? Many thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam champions lists

Thank you for your contributions, however, please keep the lists formatted so that the latest champions are at the top. This is how all other lists of grand slam champions are formatted; read the talk pages for further information. Charles 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam Men's Doubles champions

List of Grand Slam Women's Doubles champions

List of Grand Slam Mixed Doubles champions

List of Grand Slam Boys' Singles champions

List of Grand Slam Boys Doubles Champions

List of Grand Slam Girls' Singles champions

List of Grand Slam Girls' Doubles champions

Please stop changing it. It's been newest at the top for as long as I can remember. Charles 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen guy, you really need to stop reverting the pages. Go to Grand Slam (tennis) and click on See Also. Every list is formatted with the newest at the top except for the two you continue to revert. PLEASE STOP. You are helping nothing and only making information more difficult to access. Charles 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Standards aren't just what YOU want. Those pages have been the same forever. How about instead of changing them yourself, you start a discussion to see what the community prefers? There is no need to unilaterally make useless changes because you think that's standard. Charles 19:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen: you made changes unilaterally, without any discussion, to a format that has been accepted on multiple articles. I asked for a third opinion, got it, and they decided against you. Let it go. Charles 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I listed the articles on the Third Opinion page; if you are not familiar with it, it is a process that asks for neutral third opinions to resolve a dispute between two editors (you and I). Fyunck click responded, posted his view in the talk page, and agreed with me. I had hoped that a neutral, unbiased opinion would convince you to stop changing the page, but apparently not. Charles 18:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to do nothing. I requested an opinion and got it. Regardless of what Fyunck has contributed to the article, he was not involved in our discussion before. He is therefore a neutral opinion. Your edits are without support and only decrease the usability of the article. In addition, multiple anonymous editors have reverted your changes. And I only have one account, stop throwing out accusations. Charles 19:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are the one that needs someone to back up your baseless claims. You don't need to try harder, you need to try at all. And no, I am not a sockpuppet, quit making up accusations when you can't win an argument based on merit. Charles 19:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And you conveniently ignore this: I disagree. This is a long chart and when people read this article the first thing they want to know is who was the last winner, not who won in the 1870's. This is not a person's biography, it is an article on Major singles victories. Maybe, "maybe" if an entire chart would fit on the screen where one could look at bottom or top at a single glance it could be lived with, but once you have to scroll it is so much better to see who is the champion now right there in the first position. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi cieloestrellado. I was watching your talk page and I see you got caught up in an argument about formatting. I think you should have tried to see what other's opinions were before the changes but there's no use discussing that: what's done is done. Personally I would side with Eightball on this matter. Just yesterday i was searching on Merseyside Derbys for info and i found the 'most recent first' approach made it easier. It's a not too dissimilar type of table. The truth is that there are LOADS of results on events/tournaments with long histories. I think the majority of people are looking for more modern records and results. I for one care more about what happened in the last ten years than the first ten. The game (both football and tennis) has changed much since its beginning so those results are more relative to the sport i watch. If you think i'm wrong then leave a message on the article talk page asking what others think. I hope I made you think about it a bit more. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Touché

OK, I admit, that was a clever solution. Charles 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:1 Peso Chileno Sello.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1 Peso Chileno Sello.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1 Peso Chileno Cara.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1 Peso Chileno Cara.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sepúlveda

I've posted a question at Talk:Sepúlveda about the page move. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Please read Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#Sorting_does_not_work before undoing all of those changes again, thanks. Gary King (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an advice

I have seen you editing the article List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty. Well, after seeing the article sources, I spotted that you are reversing legitimate edits. Please refrain from doing this and take your time to read the sources of the countries you have reverted. This will prevent the settling of a dispute. I should also point that some sourcesmay be wrong. However, you continue reverting the article to wrong versions, this may be taken as Vandalism if you continue in the near future.

Have a nice day! Cocoliras (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you even took time to read the sources, it looks like it isn't, it is UNLIKELY, I told you that many figures you reverted where RIGHT. I wanted you to read them and check them yourself, some even have graphics and you still delete them, replacing them all with ECLAC/CEPAL's claims, which use a single poverty line. The links to be given below use the national poverty lines.

• Panama
  • [1]
• Guatemala
  • [2]
• Venezuela
  • [3]
• Bolivia
  • See: Economy of Bolivia. There's a link there.

Cocoliras (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was the anon, however, I didn't realized I wasn't logged in. However, I readed Guatemala's source and it clearly says, in a graph bar, that poverty there is in 30% or 29%. Its not written, it is drawn.

Anyways, as for Panama, the estimate you placed may be fine, in this one, sources vary, from 31 to 30 to 29, 28, 27... up to 20%. However this one should be better investigated, as Panama's population growth has undermined poverty. I'm also checking the source for Guatemala to seek for the graph. Cocoliras (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got Guatemala's source:

• Download document.
• Go to page 47.
• Seek for Guatemala's graph, you'll see that nationwide poverty (the total of rural and urban poverty) is at 30-29%. It is clearer than water. You shouldn't have a problem with it.Cocoliras (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also saw the ECLAC/CEPAL listing, and certainly, I'm not sure where is the definite source. I read Panama's national poverty percentage and is 30.8% (your estimate). However, the total reads 21.8% (my estimate) and I'm not sure which can be placed in the box. I also saw the indigency/extreme poverty rate and it was at 15.2%. Now, if we mix them sum them, it is 46%?! That's an impossible rate considering poverty is lower. And former slums have ceased to exist. Now, if total poverty lists 21%, why national lists 30%. I prefer going through the definite total because I'm not in a mood to guess. And for the moment. Guatemala is out of the case as another ECLAC/CEPAL source gives poverty in Guatemala at 29% for now... Cocoliras (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never complained about that. However, will you care on explaining what of those stats is the definite one, because I see many columns, and I see the Panama 30% poverty percentage as being in the "national" line, however, I see another extreme poverty category with another "national" line. Now, if we sum both the percentage is a lie. As with Guatemala, it is at 29%. Period. Don't get against poverty lines that are specified, that includes absolute poverty. Now, tell me, why do you think the, lets see, 30% of poverty under the "national" category to Panama is the definite percentage. When I say definite I mean a percentage which includes poverty and extreme poverty altogether. I'm not here to make jokes so be clear when you give your answer. I'm reverting the page until you give an explanation as clear as mine. Cocoliras (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we include extreme poverty then Panama's poverty percentage would be 46%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 04:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from forcing your corrupt edits on List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty. The sources above simply counter your claims. And they are official sources. Please refrain from editing data for the nations mentioned above. Thanks. Here, you have the links again.

• Panama
  • [4]
• Guatemala
  • [5]
• Venezuela
  • [6]

Cocoliras (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Swimming

Could you please respond to our abbreviation questions here? Thank you, Ctjf83Talk 05:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rafael Nadal statistics and results

Rafael Nadal statistics and results, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal statistics and results. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Usain Bolt

Hi there! Minor formatting twaddle alert - Can I just ask how you came to the conclusion that this edit complied with the MOS? You're the second person to make this kind of edit but I can't find anything that seems to support writing it this way.

PS - Could you look through the article for errors? It's pretty much all my work so I assume I've made various errors and I'd appreciate multiple editor input. Are you interested in athletics at all? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done

File:Olympic panda.jpg

Awarded to CieloEstrellado for hard work in maintaining various Olympics articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

World No. 1

Any particular reason why you're changing all the "World No. 1"s to "world number one"s? Did you discuss the changes anywhere? GlassCobra 06:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that such a discussion on every players' talk page would be time-consuming; however, it is common practice to discuss unilateral changes that affect several pages in centralized locations, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis, perhaps? The wording may be miniscule; however, I believe the "World No. 1" stylistic formatting may have a significance. Please revert your edits until you have discussed them with others. GlassCobra 06:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have made clear, these changes need to be discussed first. It seems plain that since "World No. 1" is already being used on all applicable articles, there is some kind of significance to this formatting. Please cease edit warring with me, as you have here. As you said, "[i]f you want to revert this, it's your problem not mine." Despite your uncivil tone, I do in fact intend to revert these edits. Please point to a discussion that you have initiated and achieved consensus for your changes before implementing them again. GlassCobra 06:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GlassCobra. The consensus in tennis articles is to use "World No. 1". If you want to change that consensus, you need to discuss it first in the appropriate discussion pages. See, among other things, WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. It's "World No. 1". You can't massively and unilaterally change established consensus.--HJensen, talk 13:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have aswered on my talk page: User_talk:HJensen#.22World_No._1.22--HJensen, talk 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Top ten tennis players

Was your merger of {{Top ten male tennis players}}, {{Top ten female tennis players}}, {{Top five male doubles}}, {{Top five female doubles}} into {{Top ten tennis players}} discussed somewhere? It looks prroblematic to me. It becomes very long and it's transcluded on the bio of each player but the other 3 top-10 lists are not relevant to that player. In addition, the current merged version is misformatted with all headings before the 4 lists, but that could be fixed if the merger remains. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin America demographics table

I set up a section to discuss good sources for this table here in order to avoid an edit war. Please state what sources would be acceptable so we can get a consensus. NJGW (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration of Russian

Hi. I noticed you replaced the romanization of Nikita Khrushchev.

There's a guideline for romanizing Russian: Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian; we use the BGN/PCGN system, and not ISO 9.

Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-09-26 00:48 z

Please note that the conventional Latin spelling of many Russians' names, and hence the respective article titles, do not correspond to Wikipedia's convention. What I have done for many articles is use a formal BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian after the name in the leading line, rather than the simplified version typically used in the title and body.

Adding ISO 9 in opposition to the guideline, or any other arbitrary choice of Romanization of Russian, detracts by reducing consistency and adding clutter. —Michael Z. 2008-09-26 02:35 z

Strict BGN/PCGN transliteration is quite unambiguous, and English-language Wikipedia is meant to satisfy a particular language. If you disagree with the guideline, I suggest you get consensus on its talk page to change it. —Michael Z. 2008-09-26 05:37 z

(By the way, I don't see the international ISO 9 in use in articles about Chinese names, including the example you cite, but Pinyin. —Michael Z. 2008-09-26 05:42 z)

Oops, I didn't think that through; indeed ISO 9 is limited to Cyrillics. But anyway, the use of BGN/PCGN for Russian is well established in Wikipedia by a long history and lots of “lively discussion”. It serves the purpose reasonably well, and traditional scientific transliteration is used in linguistics articles. The relevant pages are WP:CYR and WP:RUS. If you're interested, some of the other Cyrillic alphabets still don't have as well-established or consistent conventions in Wikipedia, and I'd like to see them all end up with a harmonized selection of systems. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-09-26 20:54 z

Regarding "Israelitas"

CieloEstrellado, I really, really want to avoid a confrontation with you in the form of editwarring, which i gather has already begun between u and another user.

Regarding our specific issue, I would like to bring up the use and context of "Israelitas" as found in the Spanish language source from the University of Chile currently being used as a reference for the demographics section of the article Chile.

I would like to point out some fundamental flaws to your argument:

1) The Spanish word "Israelitas" translates into English as "Israelites". That is quite simple, and irrefutable.
2) In Spanish, the word Israelitas, to all my available knoweledge and research (including from RAE) is used interchangeably with the word Jews (in the sense of modern Jews), not just to refer to the ancient Israelites as it is used in English. And modern Jews, may be of any colour or race.
3) The context in which the word "Israelitas" is used in the source clearly implicates it to be European (Ashkenazi) Jews since "Israelitas" is mentioned as one of several small waves of "inmigrantes blancos" (White immigrants) to Chile. The source obviously does not mean to imply non-White Jews such as Ethiopian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Indian Jews, etc.
4) Most importantly, the state of Israel did not exist at the time Jewish immigration to Chile which is spoken of in the source! That is the most fundamental of your flaws. Israel did not yet exist, so the source does not use "Israelitas" in the sense of Israelis, because Israelis did not yet exist at that time to be able to immigrate to Chile. Israelis never emigrated to Chile because Israelis did not exist yet. It was Jews from Europe that immigrated, and it is in that sense, the sense of Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants to Chile that the source uses "Israelitas", NOT in the sense of Israelis.
4) Israelis includes Jews of all colours and races, not just White Ashkeanzi Jews, and if the source uses Israelitas in the sense of Israelis (as you keep claiming) then it would include all the non-White Israeli Jews too. Furthermore, "Israelis" includes non-Jews as well. Al-Andalus (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Pedro Verdugo

A tag has been placed on Pedro Verdugo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix_talk 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

One last time.

I know you probably don't give two shits, but I'm asking you one last time to stop changing election templates from electiontable (which is aesthetically much more pleasing and is the Wikipedia norm for a vast majority of templates, like it or not) to election table (which is much less aesthetically pleasing and seldom used.)

So, stop changing election templates. It annoys me and many other editors I know.

--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't want to waste time rollbacking your edits. So please stop changing templates also from me. --Checco (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, is this guy stupid or what? Can he read, or what? Users have complained to him to STOP changing templates from the standard electiontable (which, if he can notice, is used quasi-universally on here). He just went crazy on changing a quadrillion templates to suit his personal aesthetic taste over the standard practice. I'll ask politely one more time, please STOP changing templates, ESPECIALLY French and Canadian ones. I'm not here to rollback a million edits made for no good reason. Please stop, or else I'll stop being polite, since you can't understand and take this little issue further up. Thank you, and I hope you can understand. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not YOURS. If other users disagree with you edits, this means that these edits are vandalism. So, please stop changing templates. I don't want to waste time rollbacking your edits, but I will rollback any edit you do to the templates I worked on. Thank you. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

The article is very short and contain no citations. --BurhanAhmed 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burhan Ahmed (talk • contribs)

Martti Ahtisaari

Thanks for updating the {{Current}} template I'd put in, I didn't realise it could be customised like that! --Ged UK (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Picunches and Incas

Your recent edits to the Chile article have gone against the discussion held in the talk page that reached the conclusion that the Picunches were a separate tribe whose main connection to the Mapuche were their language. Please keep that in accordance to the discussion, thank you.--|!*//MarshalN20\\*!| 12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Urbanite

Hello, I've declined your speedy request for this article, as there was no reason given as to why it should have been deleted. If you believe there is a serious problem with the article and that it meets any of the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria}}, please feel free to retag the article (specifying why you think it ought to be deleted), or leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Template:Presidents of Chile

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Presidents of Chile. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.