User talk:SergiSmiler/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SergiSmiler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Account Blocked

Edit warring on another user's talk page and removing AFD tags is unacceptable. As a consequence, I have blocked your account for 72 hours. Please do not continue with this behaviour in the future, else you will be blocked for a longer period. → Call me Hahc21 18:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Really? I have been blocked for defending something that is real? Really? Each day alucináis me more ... page Bionic Tour this perfect, not will rock be removed just because Status required ... I am very angry ... Hahc21 expect you to think, because this makes no sense, you know me to try to address the issue with Status and he refused to talk to me? here the real problem is his, not mine, I just defend my work. Please remove the block and leave the page Xtina tour alone.--SergiSmiler (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you can explain things in Spanish with Hahc21, perhaps some progress can be made there. However this particular unblock request is declined per WP:NOTTHEM - you are the one who chose to edit-war and remove AfD tags, and something "being real" is not how Wikipedia 'defends' things: Wikipedia operates on a basis of verifiability, not truth. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Comment again, the language barrier was and still is a major problem for this editor. He doesn't understand what is being said, nor does he follow guidelines or when editors try to help and when he does add substantial text to an article, it makes no sense. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

True. To SergiSmiler: I am a Spanish speaker. Can you explain to me, in Spanish, your point of view? → Call me Hahc21 18:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hahc, take caution: user is known for disruption. Status and Lady Lotus have made this rather evident. To reviewing admin, I would advise against unblocking since user has not explained how behavior shall changed if unblocked, and is essential pointing fingers. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This user keeps being warned and warned and has also been removing warnings from his talk page, like this edit, in which he simply removes my message without saying anything. I don't think he is ready for Wikipedia. decodet. (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Again, I think the user needs a longer block period, the language barrier is becoming worser daily. A discussion above this page, witnesses the user sayng that he calls Wikipedia rules stupid. He doesn't reply to queries, makes grammatical mistakes, and also links to disambig pages. Please increase the block period.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

---Same comment in Spanish--- Comentario Una vez más, creo que el usuario necesita un período más largo de bloque, la barrera del idioma es cada vez más peor todos los días. Una discusión por encima de esta página, el usuario sayng testigos que él llama las reglas de Wikipedia estúpido. Él no responde a las preguntas, comete errores gramaticales, y también enlaces a páginas de desambiguación. Aumente el periodo de bloque--Shane Cyrus (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC) --- ---- Comentario Sergi, usted tiene que entender que las directrices no son tonterías y tampoco las personas que pregunten por fuentes necias. No somos sus enemigos. ¿Por qué no editar Wikipedia en español?--Shane Cyrus (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You see Shane, I collaborate on Wikipedia in Spanish, but as I saw some things in the English ended not be complete or whatever, I decided to start collaborating on this too. But anyway, when I say that I find silly something is because it is, that is, there are rules that seem silly, but in the end I close my mouth and stand still and do nothing because you are waiting for the minimum block my account.--SergiSmiler (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Para Hahc...

A ver si hablando en español se me comprende de una vez por todas, voy a explicar lo ocurrido y lo que paso en realidad.

El caso es que cree la página de la gira de Christina Aguilera, el Bionic Tour, que fue cancelada, pero como ya había una versión guardada por un usuario, pues la use y la termine de completar para poderla usar, así que cree el articulo del Bionic Tour. Durante unos días, después de su creación, tuve la ayuda de un usuario que me estuvo aconsejando sobre cómo mejorar la página, ya que tenía un par de errores, que fueron corregidos y le agradecí al usuario su colaboración. Hasta aquí todo bien, pero una tarde veo que un usuario borro la página sin argumento alguno, en un primer momento pensé que sería un posible vandalismo, así que la volví a poner, y aunque le pedí en su página de discusión que no lo volviese a hacer, continuo, así que se inició una guerra de ediciones que yo no inicie, solo estaba poniendo mi propio trabajo, que fue corregido con un usuario, en Wikipeida. Aquí se comenzó a complicar todo, apareció la plantilla esa, que de verdad no tiene ningún sentido, creí que esa persona no tenía ese poder como para poder borra mi página por toda la cara con una prepotencia increíble, es más, cuando intente hablarlo con el saben lo que contesto? No pongas nada en mi página de discusión… eso es irrespetuoso, yo intente hablar con él, pero se negaba constantemente, hasta que pedí ayuda a LadyLotus, pero claro, la plantilla estaba y como la gente aquí ya me ha cogido manía y me quieren ver por aquí, están en mi contra, cuando lo único que hago es poner información que desde mi punto de vista es relevante.

Así que continuo la guerra de ediciones, porque a ver, estaba destruyendo mi trabajo con todo el morro del mundo! Sin decirme nada ni siquiera! Estaba muy enfadado, y voy y me encuentro con este bloqueo tan incensario… solo he puesto un artículo de una gira de una cantante, no es para hacer esto, aunque la gira fuese cancelada, creo que no está mal tener el articulo ahí, es información extra que puede venir bien para ver la carrera de Aguilera… en fin, ahora sé que no debí borrar las plantillas porque no sabía con quién estaba tratando, pero el caso es que no hice nada de esto desde un postura vándala no nada parecido, es más, pensaba que el vándalo era el otro usuario que se le había metido en la cabeza que ese artículo debía ser borrado, y claro, como permitirlo?

En conclusión, que no he hecho nada malo, únicamente defendí mi propio trabajo… además, cuando intenté arreglarlo con el dialogo el usuario se negó, exigiendo que no le dejase mensajes en su página de discusión, y Hahc21, por mucho que digan que soy perturbador, malo o lo que sea, no te creas nada, yo solo soy un Smiler que busca que la página de Miley Cyrus este bien hecha, con mucha información, porque es su carrera! Y cuando vi que había una página con las cosas hechas de la gira de Xtina, pues simplemente decidí usarlo, y fue borrado sin decirme nada, ni un mensaje, nada de consenso… nada, no hubo ni respeto ni nada… solo exigir con su propio criterio, esto es más una dictadura que un consenso… yo intenté hablar y dejarlo todo bien, pero siempre me dejan en mal lugar…

Por favor, todo ha sido un mal entendido, no entendía nada! Ponte en mi lugar! Haces una página bien hecha, que ha sido corregida por otro usuario con experiencia y de repente aparece alguien y lo borra negándose a hablar… que querías que hiciera… por favor, desbloquéame… o por lo menos, no me dejes bloqueado tanto tiempo, esa gente me odia, no quieren que este aquí… están todos en mi contra… necesito ayuda de verdad con estas personas… piénsalo Hahc21.--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

El problema principal es que para poder editar la Wikipedia en inglès debes dominar el idioma, sino se presentan problemas como este. Usar Google Translate para colaborar en esta Wikipedia es muy mal visto en general, sobre todo cuando existen discusiones (lo cual se evidencia claramente en tu caso). Lo que pasó con el artículo Bionic Tour es lo siguiente: De acuerdo a nuestras polìticas, todos los artículos deben cumplir con unas pautas de relevancia. A diferencia de la Wikipedia en español, nosotros no aceptamos cualquier tipo de artículos. Existen unas pautas generales y unas pautas específicas que dictan cuáles artículos pueden ser creados y cuáles no. El artículo del concierto estaba guardado por un usuario porque él sabía que al moverlo al espacio principal iba a ser borrado. Status no es ningún usuario especial. "No sabía con quién estaba tratando": estabas tratando nada más que con un usuario que conoce las reglas, y tu rompiste dos reglas precisamente por no conocerlas.

Es muy importante, y recalco esto: Aquí somos mucho más estrictos que en es.wiki con la cortesía, el comportamiento y las reglas. El no conocer una regla no es excusa para no sufrir las consecuencias, y por eso te bloqueé. Antes de que vuelvas a editar aquí, es necesario que te sientes a leer y a familiarizarte con las reglas, aunque para ello tambien debes mejorar tu inglés, de lo contrario será esfuerzo perdido. Y un ultimo detalle: con respecto a "únicamente defendí mi propio trabajo," "destruyendo mi trabajo" y "desde mi punto de vista es relevante": Todo lo que edites en Wikipedia, fuera de tu página de usuario, no es tu trabajo. Tu pudiste haberlo escrito, pero eso no te da poderes especiales para controlar dicho artículo. Y como ya comenté más arriba, en esta wiki no hay "más una dictadura que un consenso." El consenso aca de qué es relevante y que no ya se acordó hace años, y por ende no hay que discutirlo nuevamente salvo en casos puntuales.

Por eso regreso de nuevo a lo de arriba: si vas a editar aquí debes ajustarte a nuestras reglas. De lo contrario, lo mejor es que permanezcas en la Wikipedia en español, ya que se te va a hacer muy complicado colaborar acá, por mucho que lo intentes. → Call me Hahc21 22:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Bien, agradezco tu comentario, pero ves la diferencia no? Tú has tenido la molestia de explicar por qué! Yo cuando intenté hablar sobre el tema nadie me dijo nada, intenté saber el porqué, pero nadie me menciono que había esa regla, si lo hubiese sabido no habría montado todo esto.

Segundo, respecto a lo que dices del consenso estoy en una postura muy diferente, por la simple razón de que en más de una ocasión intente llegar a él, hablando por paginas discutió y demás, pero nadie contestaba a mis peticiones, me ignoraban, así que tome al toro por los cuernos, edite lo que creí que estaba bien y ya. Es verdad que ya tuve varios problemas por aquí, pero ese no es un motivo para estar bloqueándome cada X tiempo… es decir, todo puede solucionarse si se me explican las cosas bien, como hiciste tu más arriba, porque aunque no me guste, acabo cediendo para evitar estas cosas, pero al final siempre acabo mal… el caso es que el consenso muy pocas veces lo he visto aquí… cuando intente recurrir a él o no contestaba nadie o directamente el propio usuario con el que tenía la disputa era el que me hacía callar… ser tan estrictos como tú dices está provocando que haya muchas confusiones aquí…

Tercero, solo decir que cuando edito algo suele ser algo mínimo, como un párrafo de 5 líneas como mucho, y nadie se queja de ella a no ser que le parezca irrelevante… es decir, que mis ediciones no son tan malas como las pintan…

En conclusión, gracias por tu comentario, pero veo que sigues sin quitar el bloqueo, está claro que mis argumentos no te sirvieron para ver que no hice nada malo, ya que actué sin ser consciente de lo que era todo ello… en fin, gracias por contestar Hahc… --SergiSmiler (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not true that nobody tried to explain to you why you've been blocked and why your edits keep being reverted. There are a lot of messages above saying pretty much the same: there are rules that need to be followed. The problem is that I think you just can't understand what people are really saying - there is a language barrier between us. I am a truly believer in second chances and I think you are capable of changing, but first you need to stop adding false stuff to Wikipedia and start to follow the rules!

A tip for you: I noticed you have difficulties with English - if you really want to edit on English Wikipedia, maybe you should restrict your work to discographies, lists, etc, these kinds of articles that do not require a lot of the language.

PS: I am Brazilian so I was able to understand most of what you guys were saying. Too bad I can't speak Spanish though :( decodet. (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment decodet., I appreciate your advice but I have to say I do not always explain things as did HAHC , ie always told me the same thing, if it is irrelevant, it does not meet a standard, but never exceeded there, never fully explained , only two lines , and for me that's no valid explanation , unlike HAHC who has had the time to explain well what happened, not like others who only say two ... things and expect to accept it without knowing anything more ...

Well, I say that even though my English is not perfect , the translator but not like it, is very good with him I understand everything , besides, when I translate some text from Spanish into English I will always careful not to put expressions or verbs which in English literally means different things , but it is also true that once wrote something myself , but I have to say that there were no spelling mistakes, and therefore to translate things , understand them , so for me, the language barrier that you say does not exist, because thanks to the translator understand it all , there may be a word that does not translate well , but understand I understand everything , the problem is how to " try to explain things " ...--SergiSmiler (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hola? Se supone que mi bloqueo ya debería haber terminado, según dice, solo son 72 horas desde el dos de junio, es decir, hasta el 5 de junio, que es hoy, es más de la hora que dice y sigue sin dejarme editar nada... puedo saber que ocurrió Hahc?--SergiSmiler (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ya no estas bloqueado. Recuerda que la hora del bloqueo es UTC, no hora local. Intenta de nuevo a ver. → Call me Hahc21 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

References

I have told you this before, when it comes to good articles like Cyrus, you cannot add just the url as a reference, you need to use the cite template. I'll keep reverting you until you start doing it ;) lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

lol thanks for the comment, I will fix it.--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:SergiSmiler, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. See WP:NFCC#9, WP:OWN#User pages and WP:USER#Non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK--SergiSmiler (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with The Bionic Tour. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Austin & Ally may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Rodriguez|first=Raini |title=Twitter / @Raini_Rodriguez: Season 2 of Austin & Ally is HERE! :)|url=https://twitter.com/Raini_Rodriguez/status/209736916113952768|date=June 4, 2012|accessdate=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

singer-songwriter

A singer-songwriter is a particular type of folk singer (as I said in my edit summary, read the article). Miley Cyrus is a singer and she writes songs, but she is not a singer-songwriter.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8

There's nothing about the image that is necessary for understanding the song, meaning that it violates WP:NFCC#8. Do not continue to reinsert the image.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

KwwI think the silliest thing in the world ... it's wrong to have a picture of the video? really ... you leave me speechless ...--SergiSmiler (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bangerz Tour. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at SMS (Bangerz), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Adabow (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mensaje

Hola SergiSimler, he visto que tu discusión tiene muchas advertencia, por favor no caigas en "guerras de ediciones" y dirigete a los otros usuarios de buena manera, te recomiendo evitar más que todos las guerras de ediciones si otros usuarios te han revertido tu solo conversa, no reviertas, a ése paso solo llegarás a ser bloqueado y veo que tienes muchos antecedentes. Espero puedas comprender. Saludos.--Damián80 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pero a ver, que pasa ahora Damián80?! Ya se confirmo cual es el nuevo single de Miley! Si se graba el vídeo es porque es el nuevo single! es algo obvio! esta confirmado por la propia directora!! no se que decir ya... de verdad, que no entiendo nada...--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A ver te explico, puede que sea cierto o no, o éste equivocado. Pero lo que no debes hacer en caer en guerras de ediciones y dirigirte de mala manera a otros usuarios, esa no es la forma correcta. Puedes que tengas razón, pero al paso de caer en lo que ya te mencione el que pierdes eres tú, espero puedas entender lo que te digo, y en todo caso si otros usuarios están en desacuerdo contigo, dirigirte a su discusión presumiendo buena fe. Saludos. --Damián80 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

En fin, entiendo lo que me quieres decir... gracias por el interés, pero es que de verdad, a veces consiguen sacarme de mis casillas... por mucho que des argumentos, lo que ellos dicen es lo importante... yo ya no se que más hacer... solo puedo decir gracias Damián80.--SergiSmiler (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pues a ver si entiendo, si lo que tratas de añadir es un posible "evento futuro", pues creo que hace mal porque Wikipedia no es una bola cristal, y pues puede que ya se éste grabando el sencillo y Miley lo haya confirmado por Twitter y por miles de lugares. Pero si aún no sale el sencillo no hay certeza de que saldrá o si será un éxito. Solo me pase por tu discusión porque he pillado muchos avisos que te dejan.--Damián80 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Si, mas o menos es eso, el caso es que puse cual seria el nuevo single, porque en Billboard la directora del vídeo lo confirmo, pero no ha sido suficiente, aunque no te preocupes, gracias por intentar ayudar. Este ultimo asunto ya lo estoy solucionando con el usuario que lo borro, así que todo bien. Respecto a los avisos, es que tengo mucho temperamento, y se me olvida que por lo minimmo te borran, ademas, creo que al ser todo por escrito y ser español, no terminan de ver mi forma de hablar... pero bueno... Gracias Damián80.--SergiSmiler (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to :4x4 (song), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You need a source explicitly claiming that the song will be released as a single. One that says a music video will be filmed is not enough. Inferring that a single release will occur because of a planned music video is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See Chase, you did not see that Diane Martel has confirmed that direct the video!? BILLBOARD FONT IS GOD! where is the problem? is obvious that is the new single for months already rumored, now this confirmadísimo, please undo those issues.--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A music video being directed does not confirm a single release. Plenty of songs that were not released as singles have music videos. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2Flows (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

hahaha thanks for sue me ...--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Things to remember

Fill in refs ALWAYS, just get into the habit of doing it and then it's like second nature. Also, you italicize titles like TV shows, films, albums, etc. You put "parenthesis" around songs and episodes. And if it doesn't have it's own wikipedia article, don't add it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song). —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a moment please, you're going to block by putting something that is true? I have no guilt that the link has a virus.--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus. 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 ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, 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. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:SergiSmiler reported by User:IndianBio (Result: ). Thank you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Your recent editing history at List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, 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. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello again Kww... I apologize for the edit war, but I do not understand because some awards as VEVO may not appear when other, many other items listed, the argument that Wikipedia can not be a list of data do not consider applicable here, mostly because it's an award that has social impact and are respected, we are talking about VEVO! if they were a magazine awards worth as people, but talk of a global music platform! Please, I want to argue that section in the talk page of the article and fix it, because I do not think all say the same thing that the two users who have been deleting my comment.

In conclusion, I made an edit war unconsciously because I do not understand how these awards are not relevant if you are ... when ... I apologize.--SergiSmiler (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below — Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Seriously, no. Stop using the request because you have no ounce of apology and you completely and consciously edit warred even after receiving the final warning on edit warring from Lady Lotus. You have been blocked previously also for the same case, you did not learn. No, this block needs to stay in please and next time it will be one month if you continue down the same road. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, your comment is irrelevant, because you explained, only you demanded, and we do not tolerate.--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You can call my comment as irrelevant as much as you want, but unless you learn to collaborate and stop edit warring, you will dig a much deeper hole for yourself. I see that Kww shares the same thought as well. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I patched your unblock template so that others could see it. The point of not edit-warring is discussion, Sergi. If you had discussed it, you would have seen that there wasn't a consensus to include the material. LadyLotus and IndianBio both objected. In time, someone else would have come by and pointed out that WP:SINGLEVENDOR prohibits inclusion of VEVO material in awards tables. Someone else probably would have pointed out that VEVO isn't actually an award at all. Instead, you edit-warred the material in, knowing that no one else agreed with your position. You've behaved this way over and over, because you don't seem to understand that it isn't a matter of fighting to get your way, it's a matter of discussing until you reach an agreement you can live with.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I understand this is not something I have to fight, but unlike others, your you explained why VEVO not be used, if someone deletes my work, from my point of view is well done and meets the rules, because I will have to take action, but that, also continue unexplained, demanding that it leave be, then do not accept it. Now, I'll tell you one thing, I repeat, will block before I try it on the discussion page, but did not have time, because I blocked it. So, now everything is clear, you can remove the block Kww?--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everything is clear. You do not understand how to collaborate, so I will not shorten I,your block. If someone reverts you, don't just keep reverting your material back because you disagree with the reversion.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Look a little thing, do not you collaborate here, do what you want with the excuses of rules that often make no sense. I add information, I correct them and other contributions of the same with mine. But when you're against something, do it ... You already know how I am with these things, and even seguis discuss things without really ... put on my page that I will be locked discussion is not to debate, is threatening .

And do not worry, as I told you, now that you explained what happens with VEVO, not add it again.--SergiSmiler (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

But what will you do the next time you add data that other editors remove?—Kww(talk) 18:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it's very simple, if I see that it is going to comvertir in an edit war, which I will discuss in the pages of discussion of each item and ready. Although I must say that I do not like to spend weeks ... always someone to answer ...--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)