User talk:Priscila Herig

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

October 2009

Disruptive editing

Please stop cluttering up articles such as Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson with unused parameters, obsolete trivia, and unsourced information, whether you are logged in or not. -- Zsero (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits continue to add unsourced information and obsolete trivia to the above-named articles. Please stop. -- Zsero (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you continue to add the same unsourced and/or obsolete information. This is disruptive editing; please stop. -- Zsero (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (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) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bilson /Hayden Christensen

Please stop edit warring on these articles. Wikipedia operates by editorial consensus, and when multiple editors object to the inclusion of content in an article, it is inappropriate for a single editor to attept to override that consensus by simply reverting the article to his/her preferred version. It is particularly inappropriate to edit war in this fashion over the biography of a living person, where stricter content guidelines apply, when other editors have expressed concern over the sourcing of various claims, particularly when come content appears to be original research and incorporate subjective elements. It is also very important for you to recognize that Wikipedia editors must limit themselves to three reverts on any article within a 24-hour period; you have clearly violated this rule on these articles, especially when your anonymous/IP edits are factored in. (This limit does not automatically apply to the removal of certain inappropriate content from biographies of living persons, which is why no warnings were given to the editors who removed your changes.)
As you have undoubtedly noticed, a Wikipedia administrator reviewed the current dispute and "protected" the article against editing by unregistered users. This should have been a signal to you that your edits had been seen as inappropriate. If you continue this edit war, I or one of the other editors involved will ask for another adminstrator review, which will almost inevitably lead to suspension of your editing privileges. I strongly suggest you back off from this dispute and read over the Wikipedia guidelines and policies involved. I'm adding a standard template here that suggests several useful starting points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Priscila Herig, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Do not add information without reliable sources, especially when doing so is edit warring.. 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. tedder (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for attempting to harass other users. 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. tedder (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Hayden Christensen worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. Glacier Wolf 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Stop it. Now. -- Zsero (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven reverts! Are you begging for a block? See WP:3RR -- Zsero (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Hayden Christensen. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back from block and at it again

What are you trying to do here? You've already been blocked three times for this, and you go right back to it! If you think your edits are somehow improving the article, make a case for them on the talk page. To everyone else who sees them the improvement is very far from obvious. Stop, or you will be blocked again. -- Zsero (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zsero that you need to explain your edits if you are honestly trying to improve the article. Simply changing the article against consensus is not going to make any difference other than causing disruption. If you continue your edit warring you likely to be blocked for a longer period of time. Please discuss about them with other editors on the article's talk page and come to a solution that everyone can agree upon. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]