I believe there may be a misunderstanding. This page is being prepared for company by myself. Please help me understand if something is wrong that I'm overlooking -oh my- before I could reach out, the page is GONE. In an attempt to get our coding done well, we had not posted much so we can place it properly, yet before we got our coding evaluated, the page is gone. In the future, do we need to place all relevant content at one posting? Papublishing (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)papublishing[reply]
Hi Elblanco123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)
Explain your actions please. Lestock Adams is a cricketer who played cricket for Cambridge University (as per ESPNcricinfo here) and is not in any way an attack page. S.G.(GH)ping!20:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elblanco123, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lestock Adams, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please stop tagging articles until you answer the concerns being raised on your talk page. —DoRD (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of your contributions, specifically [1] & [2], I am concerned that you may not fully understand what you are doing when you use page curator to tag articles. Can you respond please? If you don't respond, administrators may have to take other actions to try and prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. One of us would happily give you a hand and show you the ropes. --S.G.(GH)ping!21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Hack. An edit that you recently made to La Romana, La Romana seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Hack (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! I see you've tagged Bongo Radio for speedy deletion as recreated by a blocked user. Who's the blocked user, or what title was this page at before where I can see the pattern? —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elblanco123. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dhavda nana, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Articles about populated places are not subject to speedy deletion except in very few circumstances (copyvio for example). Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care when nominating articles for speedy deletion, as (from looking at your talk page) you have been commented on this by others before. The article I wish to make comment about is Loki Laufeyson (films). There was nothing in it that could remotely be described as an attack, and labelling it as such and warning the editor can be seen as biting the newbies. Ok, so the article wasn't needed, but the content (with references) could be added to other articles. Warning editors unnecessarily harshly can frighten them off the project.
In addition to the one above, you have also badly nominated Westbourne Park Primary School for speedy deletion. There is NO evidence to suggest that the editor was under a ban or block, so to suggest otherwise is verywrong. And before you nominate it for speedy under notability, I should remind you that educational establishments are not elegible for speedy under notability requirements.
I have been reviewing your speedy deletion nominations, including some that have been deleted, and found more examples of incorrectly nominated articles. I will be keeping an eye on your future nominations, and if things do not improve I will be asking advice from other administrators as to what can be done. Badly nominating articles for speedy deletion, particularly where they include accusations of attacks, bans or blocks, will frighten away new editors and could be classed as more damaging to the project than a few stub articles. If you have any questions about speedy deletion, or on what I have written here, please don't hesitate to ask me.Stephen!Coming...07:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Kalimba (singer). 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. Kalimba is his stage name and thus article is titled Kalimba. If you disagree, request a page move here to gain consensus instead of edit-warring.Erick (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Winkelvi. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Phil Collins seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉✓05:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Christine Cavanaugh, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉✓05:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christine Cavanaugh. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arcángel (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican people. 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.
Your recent editing history at Oscar de la Renta[3] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You have been warned you are in violation of 3rr. More edit like this and you can be blocked CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jordin Sparks. 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
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. Aspects (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
According to [4] she has dual citizenship from her mother and identifies as Canadian. According to Canadian American, Americans born to Canadian parents are Canadian Americans. Unless you have some a better source to contradict this that you're not putting in the article for some reason, I don't understand why you continue to revert this.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Snuggums(talk/edits) 04:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elblanco123,
Why do you have delete my contributions on articel Liza Jacqueline?
The voice of Liza you can hear it on Quest for the codex. Please delete not truth information. And please answer it.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An unexplained revert like this is poor form. I gave reasoning for my edits, which you have not refuted in any way, choosing instead to blindly revert without explanation. Why do you think the Infobox person is needed? Why are you inserting unsourced information, despite there being a long-standing note in the article regarding her birth date being disputed? Are you not providing sources for your edits? Why aren't you providing useful and informative edit summaries to explain your edits after being reverted? NiciVampireHeart16:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Eve Torres shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ☾Loriendrew☽☏(talk)01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please do not remove content like you did on the Annette Moreno page, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Karst (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content like you did on the Ana Victoria page, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Karst (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ashanti (singer), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DwpaulTalk 02:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hikaru Utada. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Hitomi (voice actress) with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. 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/OttonielWhite, 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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
that has nothing to do with me because I have reverted several editions in Wikipedia please, things are not so and if I am responsible I deserve to be blocked indefinitely
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I want to change my user name to unlock and not vandalizare the article because you already disable the Twinkle for a time.
Decline reason:
You have made no effort to understand why you are blocked -- despite it being explained above -- and you do not have sufficient command of the English language to contribute effectively. Talk page access revoked. MER-C03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please stop tagging articles until you answer the concerns being raised on your talk page. —DoRD (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Kalimba (singer). 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. Kalimba is his stage name and thus article is titled Kalimba. If you disagree, request a page move here to gain consensus instead of edit-warring. Erick (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2014 (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 Cristina Vee, you may be blocked from editing. Please see talk page. The consensus was to move to Cristina Vee. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Elblanco123 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: ). Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Eve Torres. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Hitomi (voice actress) with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Portal:Daddy Yankee, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Daddy Yankee and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Daddy Yankee during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)