User talk:Shakira111

October 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at El Dorado (Shakira album).

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, and seek consensus with them. 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Ss 112 12:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please explain how the record label inflates sales! I need your clear and complete explanation otherwise this reliable source from the record label has to be edited into it. Shakira11121:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC+8)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Shakira. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Please show me where did I add an unsourced material to Wikipedia. Shakira11121:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC+8)

Please stop adding the same content that was already verified by a reliable source to be false. (RS:1 2) Bennv3771 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Where? Shakira has been nominated for the Rock and roll Hall of Fame in 2012. Show me your recipes to prove me wrong. Your links cannot be opened. Shakira11121:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC+8)

Both links open fine for me. But if you want more, fine: NPR, CBS,Rolling stone,Guardian,USA Today, Los Angeles Times,NY Post, EOnline,Cleveland.com,Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter,Zimbio. Surely one of these links works for you. Otherwise, just google it yourself. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you bothered to read up on the eligibility criteria for being nominated into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, you would know that Shakira could not possibly have been nominated in 2012, because the rules say you are only eligible 25 years AFTER your first commercial record was released. Shakira's first record was released in 1991, hence she would only be eligible for nomination from 2017 onwards. Please read about the induction process (including the rules) here. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please find a better source for certifications other than Twitter. This is not reliable per WP:TWITTER. Ss112 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at El Dorado (Shakira album), you may be blocked from editing. Ss112 20:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I have done nothing disruptive, I gave real source from the official account. You should stop changing it.

I don't think you know the meaning of disruption on Wikipedia. It is disruptive to continue restoring something after you've been reverted. You have been reported to an administrator, and quite frankly, edit warring isn't a good look for you after you've only been here for a few months. Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. When somebody reverts your change, instead of restoring it, regardless of your reasons or how strongly you feel about it, you should discuss it on the talk page and get consensus to make the change. Ss112 02:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chantaje. Another revert and you'll be reported to an administrator. You are disruptive; you don't understand what WP:CONSENSUS or WP:BRD even are. Ss112 15:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are we having a discussion? Edit warring, reverting a user isn't a discussion. You discuss on talk pages, not through reverts. The column in the certifications table says "Certified units/Sales". The Nielsen figure given is certainly not a certification, and not just sales either—it includes streams. The US figure is a certification. The Italian figure is a certification. Those are certified because the certification includes streams. Nobody is claiming 960,000 in the US is only sales. If the figure in the column is neither purely a certification or a purely sales figure, we don't include it. One more revert on Chantaje and you've broken WP:3RR. You should have been blocked for your past disruptive behaviour at this point anyway. Ss112 15:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You have a history of disruptive editing, including edit warring. This needs to stop, right now. When you make an edit and it is reverted you go to the talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. I don't like blocking people but that is the next step. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Selena. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. – jona ✉ 18:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at Shakira 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Shakira111 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: ). Thank you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shakira's tour ticket price in Washington DC.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Shakira's El Dorado World Tour in San Antonio.png

Thanks for uploading File:Shakira's El Dorado World Tour in San Antonio.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Shakira's tour ticket price in Washington DC.png

The file File:Shakira's tour ticket price in Washington DC.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is a file like this really helpful to "any" article of this type.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shakira's Istanbul show.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oral Fixation Tour (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket reverting

Stop reverting my edits without a valid reason. All content on Wikipedia has to be verified by a reliable source and none of your reverts have addressed that. If you continue to blanket revert edits, I will report you for disrupting Wikipedia. Erick (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry Service Inflated sales.

I don't understand why you want to inflated Shakira sales here in Wikipedia. This album sold "only" 8 million copies between USA and Europe, there's no way this album sold more 10 million in latin countries that are little markets and you get a certification when you sold 5,000 copies. 18 million copies is too high. 13 million is the more accurate based in the album certifications and peak positions. Stop inflated that album sales, we have to be accurate here in Wikipedia.This site made a very good analysis about the album sales, I think you should read to understand why what you're doing is wrong.link--88marcus (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of best-selling Latin music artists. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Laundry Service. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 14:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: you had blocked this user for edit-warring however I don't think he/she is ready to learn. Just now used the IP proxy 45.64.241.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit war and remove content from the same article he/she is blocked for. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ip address has been blocked for block evasion... Shakira111, the blocks will increase if this continues. -- Longhair\^talk 19:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: the user came back and reverted the same articles for which it was blocked. I don't think this block has helped in any way. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Laundry Service. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 08:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shakira111. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

{{unblock|reason=Those are certified sales. I don't understand why you guys keep deleting it. Take an example of Mexico, AMPROFON no longer run their site. All the certification updates posted on their Facebook page. Check this out: https://www.facebook.com/CertificacionesAmprofon/ }}

. Longhair\^talk 13:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been edit warring over multiple articles and even when you are blocked have been trying to avoid it by using your IPs to avoid it. This is considered as sockpuppetry and is a big no-no. You haven't stated here that you understand why you were blocked for or what you can do for bettering it so I will leave @Longhair: to decide on the template. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Sorry I have come into this conversation late I feel. I know why this editor is blocked, having blocked them myself. But what is the latest remarks in response to? If they are questioning their block it's for WP:BLOCKEVASION. When you've been disruptive, you're issued a block to avoid further disruption here. When you evade that block, I will extend that block which I have advised you of previously. Hence the current situation we have here right now. -- Longhair\^talk 10:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: My apologies, I have just noticed this editor requesting an unblock. I will assist to format their request for another administrator to review... -- Longhair\^talk 10:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Shakira111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Those are certified sales. I don't understand why you guys keep deleting it. Take an example of Mexico, AMPROFON no longer run their site. All the certification updates posted on their Facebook page. Check this out: https://www.facebook.com/CertificacionesAmprofon/

Decline reason:

As explained below, that's not an appropriate source. Yamla (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Facebook links are not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS. If you're relying on Facebook for facts, forget about it here. Another administrator will review your request to be unblocked. Please use the time meanwhile to understand what is a reliable source is what is not. In short, Facebook is not. The link I've provided here in this reply will assist you to determine reliable sources deemed suitable for citing at Wikipedia. -- Longhair\^talk 10:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling others a dumbass isn't necessary here.
2. I'll extend your block yet again if you're only here to misuse your talk page to abuse others.
3. You failed to add reliable sources then edit warred, then evaded your block. Abusing others for your own situation isn't necessary either. Stop. Because the next step will be to extend your block indefinitely due to further disruption while you're already blocked. -- Longhair\^talk 07:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your signature in your recent (reverted) comment here linked to my user page and not your own. I'm viewing that as disruptive also if that was intentional. You may also wish to read over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if other content or references here are causing you concern. One editor is hardly to blame for references in a series of articles so please consider how you can make constructive edits here rather than continue arguing with others which seems to be your focus lately. -- Longhair\^talk 07:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: I don't think this block is working or is punitive. Check 93.185.80.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as the user again tried to sock to reinstate the same edits. This is going beyond disruptive now. I have reported the IP to WP:AIV, I will leave you to deal with Shakira111 as you think best would be. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: How do you know it's the same editor? I can see the Twitter reference, but beyond that, I haven't edited alongside this editor before to know more about their editing patterns. You can take this to my talk page if you wish. -- Longhair\^talk 22:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at El Dorado (Shakira album). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Shakira in Estadio Azteca.png

Thanks for uploading File:Shakira in Estadio Azteca.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, Shakira111, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Shakiraeldorado (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. 66.87.148.99 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Shakira's Istanbul show.png

The file File:Shakira's Istanbul show.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is a poster in the infobox to represent the tour, the fair use rationale, "It will be placed on the page of El Dorado World Tour." is not valid and there is no critical commentary so it fails WP:NFCC#8.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aspects (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Loca (Shakira song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Longhair:, the user came back from the block to continue the exact same edit war for which he/she was blocked. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And still continuing to disrupt the articles using the same 93.185.80.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Shakira111, 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.

—IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]