Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Por amor o por dinero, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. No flags please. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, MOS:ICONDECORATIONTelenovelafan215 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
While you are free to remove older warnings and block notices from your talk page, please be aware that any admin investigating future disruptive editing will immediately look at your talk page record and your block log where the relevant history is kept. You have now been blocked twice for essentially the same behavior in a relatively short period of time. If it becomes necessary to do so again, the block will be a long one as your behavior is likely going to be interpreted as deliberately thumbing your nose at the community and our policies and guidelines. We prefer original mistakes here. To which point, use of your talk page to promote your disruptive agenda is not acceptable and may result in your talk page user rights being revoked for the duration of your block, which could also be extended. Once the current block has expreied you are welcome to make useful contributions to the project. However, I strongly advise you to tread carefully as there is unlikely to be much tolerance for any further disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, please don't block me forever.
Blocks are not punitive. They are intended as a last resort to protect the project from disruptive behavior. As such we try to avoid longer term blocks where that is possible. But, if we are dealing with naked vandalism or persistent disruption despite warnings and shorter-term blocks, then long ones, in some cases very long blocks, are sometimes applied. Community policy and guidelines do not currently permit indefinite blocks of IP addresses. But in rare and extreme cases I have seen, and imposed blocks running for multiple years. Of course, the easiest way to avoid all of this unpleasantness is to take heed of messages and warnings from experienced editors and refrain from problematic behavior. When in doubt, ask for advice or clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me a couple of things. First explain why you were blocked. This is so there is no question that you understand the issues and will not repeat them. And secondly please tell me what you intend to do or work on if I unblock you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific in your explanation for why you were blocked. You may wish to refer to the numerous warning messages that were left on your talk page which can still be found in the page history as well as your edits that were reverted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I hate warning messages, but I have to learn to live with them. Brazil's version of The Voice Kids was cancelled after the broadcaster Globo announced that the upcoming twelfth season of the regular series would be the farewell season, so I intend to highlight TVK Brazil in pink, and for Brazil's franchise to be highlight in pink altogether once the regular series ends altogether. 96.227.141.216 (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you with the understanding that you will refrain from editing against consensus or in a manner contrary to WP:MOS and other relevant policies and guidelines. Please edit with care. Given your recent history it's likely that at least for the near term, your editing may be subject to some degree of scrutiny from experienced editors and any signs of disruptive behavior will be quickly reported. Any future block, should such be required, is unlikely to be for less than 6 months. On a side note you should consider setting up a WP:ACCOUNT. There are quite a few benefits to this, including, with time, the ability to edit certain pages that anonymous (IP) editors cannot as well as the ability to create pages. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that almost all of the edits you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
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.
Yeah, well, you see, I was unaware that Jason Derulo had sexual harassment lawsuits at first, so if this continues, the changes of him continuing to be a coach in season 13 of Australia's version of The Voice are unlikely. 96.227.141.216 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant with regards to the notification you received. You have been given numerous notices & warnings with regards to WP:CITE and WP:RS after your contributions. Many of those notices you have deleted. You've been advised by @Ad Orientem to review and follow the policies and guidelines of WP as a condition of your very recent unblocking. Citing the material you are contributing to the articles using reliable sources is a key component to keeping WP a fact-based, encyclopedic resource. You need to review the above noted items and ensure you adhere to them going forward, or you risk extended, long-term or even permanent blocking from editing. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. You need to STOP doing what you have been doing. You will continue to be reverted, templated and notified until you stop or are blocked from editing. If you have ANY questions - see the links provided in all the messages that have been left by myself and others which you have ignored and deleted. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you like is irrelevant. This is WP, which has numerous policies and guidelines which have been linked and explained to you ad nauseam. It is your responsibility to follow them. Redirects - especially in the contexts you are editing - often exist to preserve historical accuracy and to serve as a reference for the future. For instance - at the time of Billie Eilish's Happier Than Ever Tour - the venue in Sydney, Australia was known as Acer Arena - not Qudos Bank Arena. Redirects exist for a purpose - which you can read up on at WP:REDIR. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
It should be noted that you've been blocked twice now for disruptive editing. On the second occasion you were unblocked as you promised that you would stop and were unblocked on the condition you would adhere to the WP:MOS. However you are continuing down the same paths and are ignoring the parts of the Manual of Style that you don't like. Be under no illusion that this is disruptive editing. If you continue the editting pattern that you are currently undertaking, and ignore what is being said to you, you will be blocked again for a longer period to avoid the disruption to Wikipedia that you are performing. Canterbury Tailtalk22:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I love editing. Can you please unblock be now?
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.
It seems that despite all the above conversations you didn't learn anything. As a result of this edit which falls afoul of more than one issue, you've been blocked for willful continuing disruptive editing. Canterbury Tailtalk12:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
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.
So why did you continue with the same disruptive editing after saying you'd stop? Can you even explain to us why that edit I blocked you for was disruptive? Canterbury Tailtalk12:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I'll stop. Please unblock now that I'm staying true to my words for once.
No, you have to prove to us that you understand why your edits were disruptive. Until you can explain to us specifically why they're disruptive, and then convince us that you will not continue with that, you will not be unblocked. Note these are two different things. You have no demonstrated any indication that you understand in any way why you're being blocked or what the problem with your edits are. Canterbury Tailtalk15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - True request
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).
Just because I love editing doesn't mean I love disruptive editing. Listen to me when I say I want articles to be sourced properly and each section of an article to have sufficient information, and I mean it. 96.227.141.216 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2023 (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.
I can't wait three months.
While I am not an admin - I have to say that 3 months is too light. Looking back in your edit history, the overwhelming reverts to the majority of those edits, the numerous times you have been warned against the edits you have been doing (long before mine), having already been blocked twice, the discussions you have had with admins promising you would stop the behaviour - only to then continue, your rampant deletion of warnings, notifications, advice and links of things to read regarding WP policies and procedures - while categorically ignoring them - I'd say you are damn lucky that all you got was 3 months. I have seen people indef blocked for less. Count your blessings and take the 3 months... because I can assure you that if you resume your disruptive editing for so much as a single article after this block expires that you can pretty much forget about editing WP afterwards.
You say that you love editing - yet there isn't much in what you have edited that has been kept, has been genuinely contributory to the project, or that wasn't outright disruptive. If I were you - take the 3 months to go back and review all the links provided to you in all the notices and warnings that you have received (and deleted... you can still find them and their contents in your talk page history). Review them, read through them, understand them, and put together a plan to make sure you adhere to and follow them. If you love editing - use that time, that information and your plan to help you conduct edits that others will also enjoy and that will be of benefit to the project. Just my two cents. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what - how about you unblock me now and I won't edit during then.
Hmm. So we have two choices. Leave the block in place and avoid any further disruption, or lift the block and trust you not to edit disruptively in a manner you've broken your promise on twice already. I think we'll go with option number 1. Canterbury Tailtalk15:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that I cut you a great deal of slack when I unblocked you, and specifically warned you that there would be limited tolerance for further disruption, I think you are fortunate. If I had been the re-blocking admin, you'd have been blocked for at least six months. I really think you need to take some time and find another hobby. This one doesn't seem to be working out and is clearly causing you, and us, a lot of grief. In any event, this has turned into a giant time sink. I am revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block. If you are still interested in contributing, we will see you again when the current block expires. And on that note, I will leave you with a final word of caution. If it becomes necessary to block you again after the current one expires, I WILL block you for not less than a full year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
October 2023
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
There is a very lengthy list of entries on this page which itemize "what they did wrong". You can read those to review. Their 3 month block ends in a couple of weeks anyhow - so better to wait it out and heed the advice given by multiple admins and users on this page. As an aside - how do you know they are a "she" ? Seems you have some inside information - which may reflect WP:COI, and may be skirting with WP:OUTING. They should also make sure they are not trying to get around a block by posting from another IP. See WP:EVASION. Please use caution. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously couldn't even go one single day off your 3 month vacation from WP before going back to the same old actions that got you so many blocks already? C'mon, man... This only invalidates all the dialogue above and all your endless pleas and promises of understanding what you were doing wrong, and it turns out it was nothing more than empty words and wasted keystrokes. You're lucky Canterbury Tail got to you before Ad Orientem did - or you'd be looking at a 1+ year-long block as they mentioned back in October. But I should digress before I get tagged for WP:GRAVEDANCING.
I will say this however - I'm going to keep an eye on some of your favorite arenas and work backwards from them to the acts which link to them and make sure you are not violating WP:EVASION in the coming 6 months. You really should use the notes and discussions on this page combined with your timeouts as a learning opportunity. </soapbox> Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. No one feels wait waiting a whole year. The last thing I want is for her to be banned from editing forever. 2024 just started anyway! 70.169.180.242 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody feels like waiting a whole year. But that is something they (she? - see WP:OUTING (again)) needed to consider and realize the risk for after the exhaustive history of notifications, warnings, and sanctions on their editing. They've been given an abundant number of chances - and have categorically ignored them all. Let's make sure that doesn't happen in the future once the block expires, and from other users and anonIPs editing those articles. This isn't rocket science. --Picard's Facepalm•Made It SoEngage!•21:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP has had four blocks (one currently ongoing), multiple warnings which they have ignored and refused to listen to, and an ANI that was previously opened on them for their disruptive behavior. That is more than enough to warrant this lengthy block. At this point, it is better to just wait for the block to expire, and then see if they are going to continue their disruptive behavior or not. HorrorLover555 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you can take as an answer is not relevant - as it isn't about you. Unless... it is? If so - referring to yourself in the 3rd person is not a good look for someone who is currently under block, and violates WP:EVASION. If not - then please (again) see WP:OUTING and watch what you reveal about other editors. Past that - as HorrorLover555 said - there have already been multiple "shortened" blocks already. They did no good. Hopefully this longer one will. --Picard's Facepalm•Made It SoEngage!•15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
